Experts In The Legal Field Can Have Biases That Influence

In Psychology, there are perspectives and approaches that are looked into when trying to understand how the intricate human mind works. These perspectives are respectfully derived from different ideas and time periods, exemplifying different ways of thinking. These perspectives include: sociocultural, biopsychological, psychodynamic, behaviorism, cognitive, and humanism. These approaches are critically essential in solving something as serious as murder, or simply even why someone acts the way they do. There are many instances where there will be shocking news stories about people committing murders—people that are so unexpected to do such harm. However, when the six

In a consequent study to that discussed above, another team of researchers investigated the effect of forensic evidence on the outcome of various criminal cases. By analyzing data from the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR), the researchers concentrated their study on decision-making during the cases, characteristics of these cases, and how forensic evidence relates to these cases (Peterson, 2013). Due to the scope of this paper, the study of how forensic evidence relates to the

In the article, “Dangerous Minds” Malcolm Gladwell first grasps his reader’s attention via crime stories, then goes on elaborating the criminal profiling processes. He defines the types of criminal profiling, whodunit and hedunit. In whodunit, “the traditional detective story…centers on the detective search for the culprit” while in hedunit, “the nest is narrowed. The crime doesn’t initiate our search for the killer. It defines the killer for us.” He emphasizes on the profiling type with the best advantage and explains its significance. Using the FBI agent John Douglas’ investigation stories and profiling techniques to support his claims, he explains the structure of criminal profiling and how it is applied to cases. However, is this type of profiling effective? The author raises this question to evaluate the FBI criminal profiling. He asks a rhetorical question, “but how useful is that profile, really?” to make the readers think and follows up this question by a counter argument which set the author’s state of neutrality in the article. With analogies, crime stories and group research analyses as supportive evidence; the author informs and explains the flaws of FBI profiling, its problems and its ineffectiveness. As a result, the author uses the counter argument to refute his previous claims

In order to effectively work in this area, Forensic psychologists must know the court’s expectations.They must be credible, competent, and concise being able to explain to the court how they arrived at their

Criminal profiling refers to the inference of offender characteristics. Historically, the use of criminal profiling can be traced back to 38 C.E. when Jews were wrongfully accused of blood libel, also known as the kidnapping and murdering the children of Christians for religious rituals during Jewish holidays (Turvey, 2012). As time progressed, criminal profiling has evolved into the study of crime and criminal behaviors, including mental health and physical evidence surrounding a crime that has been committed in an attempt to identify a likely suspect. However, the validity of scientific evidence as a whole was challenged in the 1993 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 592. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the trial judge was the “gatekeeper” to prevent “junk science” from entering the courtroom and outlined standards, also known as Daubert standards, for expert testimony including, testing, peer review, error rates and acceptability (Turvey, 2012).

Forensic Psychologists play important roles in our legal system, from collecting knowledge and applying it to the law to evaluating the defendants (Greene, 2014). Every case has different factors that effect which Forensic Psychologist will be needed to achieve finding the truth in the court. Likewise with every case, each defendant has their own accountant of what had happened to bring them before the court. In the cases of Alisha Waters and Shawn Smith an Applied Scientist could be called to be an expert witness in both cases. In Adam Parker’s a Forensic Evaluator was called in to evaluate his mental state.

The Supreme Court's decisions cause numerous amounts of controversy due to ignorance of racial balance, especially during the era of slavery and in three specific cases. At this point, slavery and segregation was a large problem. Colored people were not treated equally and were slaves, yet not even in court were they treated equally. These people were convicted of crimes with little to no evidence just because of their race. The Supreme Court's decisions cause numerous amounts of controversy, especially during the era of slavery, making these three cases influential because the controlled views of the nation are seen through the court, so whatever the court sees is what the nation views, and in a find example, three specific cases: the first case is Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), the second case is Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), and the third case is Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971).

Despite widespread belief, criminal profiling is not a new tool. Informal criminal profiling of unknown offenders has an extensive history dating back to the 1880s when two physicians George Phillips and Thomas Bond would examine clues found at the crime scenes of unidentified British serial killer, Jack the Ripper to make predictions and assumptions regarding the killer's personality. (Schurman-Kauflin, D. 2014) By 1960, Patrick Mullany who would later go on to become the FBI's first criminal profiler would scrutinise the behavioural displays left at crime scenes for evidence of mental disorders and other unique personality traits in order to make assumptions regarding the perpetrator's identity and method of operation. (Ramsland, 2014) During this

The United States has been a world leader in homicide for centuries. Indeed, “since the early 19th century ...[America has been] the most homicidal country in the Western world” and holds that title today (Kelley, 2009). In a 2007-2008 list of 31 nations, only two nations, Mexico and Chile, had higher homicide rates (Comparison, 2010). Nations with higher populations, such as India and China have fewer homicides (Comparison, 2010). Further, a nation such as Japan, which has a lower population but a higher population density then the United States, has one of the world’s lowest homicide rates (Comparison, 2010). Population size and density, therefore, cannot be the chief reasons for this nation’s higher homicide rates.

People say that when they were segregated that they were all friends but obviously not would a person treat anybody in their real family like this.It is impossible to be completly unbias. People say that the justice system is unbiased because judges are unbiased all the time.Most judges are but they make assumption as soon as they see the child and is already thinking about what they need to before the child even gets to speak. Judges say they listen to every case the same and show no favoritism towards race,gender, or age. But they do not no matter what people do they will always pick and choose what they want to listen too. Judges are normal meaning that they are not perfect . So they make mistakes and show bias to they are normal so of course

In the United States the degrees by which a person can be charged with killing another person vary; the degrees of murder include first, second, and third degree murder, the definitions of which can vary in legal terms from state to state. These charges are considered to be legally separate from voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, and justifiable homicide which each have their own definitions (Cole, Smith, & DeJong, 2014). Each type of murder, manslaughter and homicide is determined by intent and negligible behavior and each will be examined in this paper (Cole et al., 2014).

The two authors choose to have their detectives rely on human nature (with different outcomes) to show that

This paper discusses the different roles that are taken on by a forensic psychologist, and how those roles interact and affect each other and how the psychologist is about to do his/her job. It looks briefly at the history of the field. We discuss the forensic psychologist as the consultant, the therapist, the researcher, as well as the expert witness. This paper also discusses predicting dangerousness and whether or not an expert can predict dangerousness. Finally we look at conflicting roles and ethics in the field.

Forensic (criminal) psychology is a job field that deals with both psychology and law. The field has experienced dramatic growth in recent years due to the role of popular movies, television programs and books popularizing the field. Often these individuals are depicted as vivid components in solving vicious crimes or timing out a criminal’s next home. While these depictions of certainly entertaining, yet these portrayals are not necessarily precise. Forensic psychologists play an instrumental role in the criminal justice system while applying psychological principles to the legal system. The crossover of the two spheres is best decided in the Encyclopedia of Psychology,

From time immemorial, man has been fascinated with behavioral deviations from the normative particularly in the context of crime, or more generally, morality. In fact, classical playwrights and novelists such as Shakespeare and Dostoevsky owe their literary success to their incredible ability to glare into socially and morally deviant minds and weave stories around them. We see a similar trend today. Much of primetime television is filled with shows that have experienced psychoanalysts chasing sophisticated and grossly deviant criminals or some variation of this general theme. The general public tends to relate to the job of a forensic psychologists to that of a cat chasing a mouse. Forensic psychology, however, is a far less