More information - Cambridge University...

INDEX

accuracy of eyewitness testimonycriteria for evaluation 41importance of event factors 41influence of individual differences 58relationship to tension arousal

47–50role of perpetrator variables

80–1variables that impact on 41–54see also event characteristics and

witness accuracy; interrogationalvariables and witness accuracy;perpetrator variables and witnessaccuracy; witness characteristicsand accuracy

Achieving Best Evidence in CrimeProceedings: Guidance forVulnerable or IntimidatedWitnesses (ABE) 99–101, 120,130, 306

adversarial systemscourtroom procedure 26–8police role in prosecution 373role of trials 28witness demeanour and credibility

70, 71advocacy, by psychologists 253affect-control theory 219–20age, and witness accuracy 63–5age-own bias, in recognition 64alcohol abuse, and witness accuracy and

credibility 62Alexander v. R 325algebraic weighted average model (jury

decision-making) 188Allen v. U.S. 187American Academy of Forensic

Psychology 5The American Jury 159American Psychiatric Association,

Statement on Memories of SexualAbuse 94

American Psychological Associationamicus brief in Lockhart v. McCree

173–4Division of Psychology and Law 4evaluation of validity of integrity tests

262–3recognition of forensic psychology 5Working Group on Memories of

Childhood Abuse 94American Psychology–Law Society

(APLS) 4, 5Americans with Disabilities Act 1992

221amnesia 31, 54–5anatomically detailed dolls 133, 143–4Annual Survey of American Law 5antisocial personality disorder

(psychopathy) 266, 285, 288anxiety

associated physiological changes281–2

relationship to memory 128archival studies 32, 36, 159area of expertise rule (admission of

expert testimony) 232arrest and imprisonment rates, ethnic

minorities 367articulated psychological differentiation

60Assisted Passenger Pre-screening System

(CAPPS) 399Association of Chief Police Officers for

England and Wales 373associative network theory 61attempted behavioural control

(non-verbal cues of deception)267

attention 29, 30attitudinal model (judicial decision-

making) 218attribution theory 219Auld, Lord Justice 163

574

www.cambridge.org© in this web service Cambridge University Press

Cambridge University Press978-0-521-70773-2 - Psychology and Law: A Critical Introduction, Third EditionAndreas KapardisIndexMore information

http://www.cambridge.org/9780521707732

http://www.cambridge.org


I n d e x 575

Auld Report 155, 163, 190Australian FACE (software) 338Australian Institute of Judicial

Administration 249Australian and New Zealand Association

of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law5, 19

Australian Psychological SocietyCollege of Forensic Psychologists 14Ethical Guidelines 94Guidelines Relating to the Reporting

of Recovered Memories 94Australian Psychologist 19autobiographical recall 124–8

basis rule (admission of expert evidence)233

battered woman syndrome 241, 242Baverstock case 198Bayesian probability theory model (jury

decision-making) 188Beck Depression Inventory 391Beck Hopelessness Scale 391Behaviour Sciences and the Law (journal)

4Behavioural Academic Self-Esteem Scale

131Bernal v. The Queen 282Beswick and Hills’ (1972) Australian

Ethnocentrism (E) scale 359Birmingham jury study 160, 171Birmingham Six 305, 386, 387, 392Blackstone, William 165body maps 142–3Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories

291brainwaves, and deception-detection

290–1British Academy of Forensic Sciences

109British False Memory Society 98British Psychological Society

Division of Criminological and LegalPsychology 4, 13

Working Group Report on polygraphs289–90

Working Party on Psychologists asExpert Witnesses 252

Buckley v. Rice Thomas 230Bull, Ray 243–4

Bunbury case 92Burch v. Louisiana 149, 150bystander intervention 11–12

Canadian Psychiatric Association 94Canadian Psychological Association 94Canter, David 397capital juries see death-qualified juriesCapital Jury Project (CJP) 164, 173,

176, 178, 182, 185capital punishment see death penaltyCCTV identification 337–8CD-fit (software) 340Chicago Jury Project 157child sexual abuse

behaviour/characteristics of victims246, 250

detecting deception 273difficulty of investigating and

prosecuting 113–14false allegations and convictions

arising from illusory memories61, 93, 98, 113

reporting 91value of recourse to legal action

96–7witness credibility in recovered-

memory cases 93see also interviewing children in sexual

abuse caseschildren

practice of deception 126, 272–4self-esteem and suggestibility 131as victims of crime 113

children as witnessescompared to adults 134–6competence criteria 115consistency of recall 125credibility 135as defendants 116, 117detecting deception 272enhancing recall with CI technique

138–40fears about testifying 118identification ability 134, 135, 136impact of involvement in legal system

118–19individual differences in suggestibility

129interview guidelines 99, 101






576 I n d e x

children as witnesses (cont.)legal aspects 114–19popular beliefs about 122–3pressure for changes to law of

evidence and procedure 114reasons for withholding the truth

117, 126, 136reforms to rules pertaining to

competence 115–19remembering ability 123–5research into 113–14rules governing questioning 114–15second-class witnesses 122special measures by court 117,

136special needs 136videotaping of statements and

interviews 120–1see also children’s testimony

children as witnesses testimony, parent’slinguistic style and child’s recall126

children’s evidence, field of 115children’s memory

accuracy of 123autobiographical recall 124–8effects of misleading questions 131memory conformity effect 124quality of recall 125, 136relationship between age and accuracy

123–5, 136children’s suggestibility

ability to resist influence of leadingquestions 133–4

and adult authority figures 132during interviewing 131–3and ethnicity 132–3individual differences 115reducing the risks during interviewing

140and self-esteem levels 131and source attribution errors 133and use of anatomically detailed dolls

133children’s testimony

accuracy 125concern over presence of perpetrator

127effect of cross-examination on recall

accuracy 125

effect of exposure to stress 128–9effect of implanting false information

130–4effect of past abuse 127enhancing 136–7factors that impact on testimony

126influence of leading questions

129–30, 133reliability of 114–15use of cue-cards and photographs

137use of open-ended prompts 137–8via closed-circuit television 117–18,

122via video-link (live) 116, 117,

119–22children’s testimony research

methodology and findings 134–6and sociology of knowledge 136

CI see cognitive interview (CI)Circle Theory of Environmental Range

399circumstantial evidence 27civil law systems 150–2Clapper, Jerry 313closed-circuit television, for child witness

testimony 117–18, 122Code of Practice for Victims of Crime

222coexistence view of post-event influences

on memory 89, 90cognition, defined 30cognitive dissonance, and witness

confidence 72–3cognitive efficiency, relationship to

tension arousal 46–7cognitive interview (CI)

compared with other interviewingtechniques 102–3

and deception-detection 268and enhancement of children’s

testimony 138–40and misinformation effect 103overview 101–5principles 102use with children 139use with vulnerable witnesses

103–4weaknesses of 104






I n d e x 577

cognitive psychologistsconstructivist model of human

memory 60, 95–6and memory-recovery therapies 93,

96Cognitive Psychology 5, 6cognitive story model

of judicial decision-making 218, 220jury decision-making 188

cognitive style, and witness accuracy 60collaborative storytelling 90collaborative testimony 78–80Commission of Racial Equality 209Commissioner for Victims’ Rights 222common knowledge rule of evidence

233, 240, 242, 247common law systems

courtroom procedure 26–8distinction between fact and opinion

231see also jury systems

common law trialsand dispute settlement 28guilty pleas 28non-guilty pleas 27problems of importing non-legal

(expert) knowledge 235comparison question test 284comparison studies (sentencing) 203computerised lie-detection

Silent Talker 280timed antagonistic response

alethiometer (TARA) 280computerised polygraph systems 283concealed knowledge technique (CKT)

287–8confabulation 32, 34–5, 259conferencing 226confessions

discounting if made under pressure175

false confessions 385predicting likelihood 389–90theoretical models 384–5

confidence–accuracy relationship inwitness testimony

conditions that impede or enhance70–5

criticism of experimental simulationstudies 74

consistency, and evidence 85–6, 125Constitution of Commonwealth of

Australia 149, 150Contempt of Court Act 1981 (UK) 163,

168, 189content complexity approach 267control question test (CQT) 284, 288coronial inquiry juries 149, 150correctional psychologists 2court clerk (Magistrates’ Court) 198courtroom procedure 26–8covert group identification 322Crime Deception Judgement Task 278Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (UK) 199crime victimisation 220–1Criminal Appeal Act 1907 (UK) 305criminal behaviour, and physical

appearance 67–8Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health

4Criminal Code of Canada Evidence Act

115Criminal Evidence Act 1988 (UK) 165Criminal Geographic Targeting

(software) 398The Criminal and His Victim 220Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal

93Criminal Justice Act 1948 (UK) 165Criminal Justice Act 1988 (UK) 116,

117Criminal Justice Act 1991 (UK) 59, 116,

141, 197, 198interviewing of children in cases of

alleged abuse 99Criminal Justice Act 2003 (UK) 153Criminal Justice and Public Order Act

1994 (UK) 369, 375Criminal Law Act 1977 (UK) 165criteria-based content analysis (CBCA)

293–4, 295–7, 298cross-examination

discrediting key witnesses 74–5guidance for expert witnesses 253process, function and importance

27–8questioning style and children’s recall

accuracy 125techniques for unsettling expert

witnesses 253–4






578 I n d e x

cross-race identifications 65cue-utilisation theory 46–7culprits 326

Dando, Jill 25–6Daubert test for expert witnesses 93,

236–8, 239–40, 248, 283, 286, 296Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals

details of case 236impact of case 238–40significance of ruling 237

Davies, Graham 246Davis, Steven 245–6death penalty

opponents’ arguments 212racial disparity in sentencing 172supporters arguments 211–12

death-qualified juriesconviction rates 173–4requirement to decide guilt and

punishment separately 178role of jurors 172–4

deceptioncriminal and civil offences 260nature of 258physiological and neurological

correlates 280–90see also lies

deception-detectioncomputerised lie-detection 280expert lie detectors 274–6human super lie-detectors 278integrity tests 261micro-expressions 269–70paper-and-pencil tests 261–4paradigms used in studies 268screening of employees 261social psychological approach 264–8training 276see also polygraphs

deception-detection accuracywith children 272–4cues 215and deception research 270–4

deception researchbrainwaves as indicators of deceit

290–1contribution 277deception-detection accuracy 270–4ethical constraints 273Exline procedure 269

external validity of mock studies269

into micro-expressions 269–70layered voice analysis (LVA) 281paradigms used 268–70problem of establishing ground truth

269psychological stress evaluator (PSE)

280–1reality monitoring 297–8scientific content analysis (SCAN)

298statement reality/validity analysis

(SVA) 292stylometry 291–2truth-bias 269veracity effect 269voice stress analysis 280–1see also expert lie-detectors

decision-making models (confessions)384

Deckinga, Shaun 313defendant characteristics

age 185attractiveness 185, 213–14gender and sentencing disparities

205–8interaction with victim/plaintiff

characteristics 186and jury trials 185race and sentencing disparities

208–12remorse 185

Demjanjuk, John 84–5Denning, Lord 190–1detection apprehension 266detection guilt 266detectives see police detectivesdeterrence theory 211–12Devlin Committee (UK) 87, 305–6diagnosticity ratio 333direct evidence 27direct mediation 226directed lie control test (DLT)

286discovered memories 91

see also false memories; recoveredmemories

distractor identifications 326distractor/foil 326Dodson case 312






I n d e x 579

dolls see anatomically detailed dollsDomestic Violence, Crime and Victims

Act 2004 (UK) 222Duffy, Peter 397

E-Fit (software) 338, 339, 340, 341electronic monitoring of offenders

199Emery case 241–2Emotion Deception Judgement Task

278emotional approach (non-verbal cues for

deception-detection) 267Employee Polygraph Protection Act 1988

(US) 261, 283encoding specificity hypothesis 137episodic memory 63errors of omission 41estimator variables (eyewitness memory)

39ethical dilemmas, and expert testimony

13ethnic and Indigenous minorities

arrest and imprisonment rates 367disparities in sentencing 208–9

ethnicity, and children’s suggestibility132–3

European Association of Psychology andLaw (EAPL) 4, 5

European Convention on Human Rights376

European Court of Human Rights 376evening types (witness accuracy) 59event characteristics and witness

accuracyduration of event 43–4flashbulb memory 53–4frequency of an event 43illumination 44–5passage of time since event 41–2physiological arousal 46–7presence of weaponstime of event 43type of event 45–6violent or traumatic events 47–50and weapon focus effect 50–3

evidencecomprehension by jurors 175–7consistency 85–6presentation of 27types of 27

Evidence Act 1977 (Cth) 115Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) 247–8Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) 247, 248Evidence Act 2001 (Tas.) 247Evidence Code of California 97EvoFit (software) 341expectations, impact on perceptions and

actions 69Expert Evidence 4expert evidence

Australian magistrates’ perspectives249

by assessors 234by referees 234differences in legal proceedings in

different countries 233–4evolution of treatment by the court

230–1history of use 230increased reliance on 29influence on jurors 176, 250,

251–2see also Daubert test for expert

witnesses; expert testimony bypsychologists; Frye test for expertwitnesses

expert evidence admissibilityacceptance of opinions 231in Australia 246–8in Canada 248–9constraints in rules of evidence in

Australia and New Zealand246

criteria 236–7in England and Wales 240–6and expertise of witness 231five rules 232–3in New Zealand 246–7, 248relevancy, sufficiency and reliability of

evidence 236–7in the US 235–40

expert lie-detectorsaccuracy 274–6avoiding being caught lying 279guidelines for detecting lies 278–9human super lie-detectors 278Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE

technique) 242use of indirect method 276use of psychologically informed mind

reading 277






580 I n d e x

expert testimony by psychologistsadvocacy 253appearing as a witness 252–4ethical dilemmas 13first case of psychologist testifying 2impact of 250increasing demand for 230roles of forensic psychologists 231–2

expert witness reports 234–5expert witnesses

court-appointed 234, 252cross-examination techniques for

unsettling 253–4duties in a criminal trial 234and expert battles 233guidelines for coping with

cross-examination 253hired gun effect 233legal guidelines 249–52retained by parties to a trial 234top five mistakes made 253

expertise rule (admissibility of expertevidence) 232

extroversion, and witness accuracy58

Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for LawEnforcement 306

eyewitness memoryclassification of variables 40, 41refreshing a witness’s memory 39taxonomies of variables 39–40variables in study of 39–41variables that impact on accuracy

41–54eyewitness testimony

importance for crime investigators andlawyers 24

importance in criminal law 25legal aspects 25–9mistaken identification and wrongful

conviction 25–6, 323reliability 24, 28role in crime detection 28trauma of witnesses 46see also accuracy of eyewitness

testimonyeyewitness testimony research

focus on misidentification of innocentsuspects 323

impact of non-identification 41

individual differences andidentification accuracy 58

issue of identification 304recognition rates 32, 35reliability of 28similarity between target and foil in

line-ups 331suspect identification and local

procedures 327variables in study of eyewitness

memory 39–41variables that impact on accuracy of

testimony 41–54eyewitness testimony research

methodologyarchival studies 32, 36ecological validity 25–6field studies 32, 35, 38generalisability and reliability of

findings 33, 34–7, 38key issues 32–3, 34, 36–8limitations of experimental simulation

method 26–8, 32, 34–5, 74meta-analysis 33, 34–51methods used 10, 11, 33, 34–51simulated crime methodology 38single case studies 32–3, 36–7slide presentations 34, 37–8staged events 34–8survey studies 33, 37

Eysenck Personality Questionnaire 372,390

FACE (Facial Composition and Editing)(software) 339–40

face identification 310FACES (software) 338, 340, 341facial characteristics 267facial composites 338–42

evaluation data 339–40software 338and verbal overshadowing 341

false beliefs 96false confessions 385

expert testimony to explain 391frequency 386individual vulnerability to

interrogative suggestibility 387interrogative pressure 384, 386–7predictors of 390






I n d e x 581

preventing 392types of 387–8

false identification 326false information, implanting in children

130–4false memories 87, 91false memory syndrome 96False Memory Syndrome Foundation

98, 130FBI profiling 395–6Federal Rules of Evidence see US Federal

Rules of Evidence (FRE)felt board interview technique 142field dependence/field independence 60field studies (eyewitness testimony

research) 32, 35, 38flashbulb memory 53–4Florida v. Richard Campbell 333Folkes v. Chadd 240Forbes direction 324forensic hypnosis

accuracy of witness recall 106–7admissibility of hypnotically enhanced

testimony 107–8concerns 107constraints on use 106credibility of testimony in

recovered-memory cases 60defined 105inadmissibility of evidence 247overview 105use by police in US 105use in the UK and Australia 105usefulness of 105

forensic psychologistsactuarial role 232advisory role 232appearing as a witness 252avoiding giving poor evidence 252clinical role 232experimental role 231guidelines for giving sound evidence

252–3roles as expert witnesses 231–2

forensic psychologyin Australia 19definition 2need for codes of ethics 249professional recognition 5Specialty Guidelines for Forensic

Psychologists 5

forward telescoping 43Franklin, George 93free press vs fair trial 168–9free recall 86Freyd, Pamela 130Frost v. Chief Constable of the South

Yorkshire Police 242Frye test for expert witnesses 236, 238,

248, 292Frye v. United States 235–6

G. v. DPP 115, 242gender

and accuracy of eyewitness testimony66–7

and jury composition 170of sentencer and sentencing disparities

216–17gender bias

in sentencing 206in society 205

general deterrence 212General Electric Co. v. Joiner see Joiner

casegeographical information systems 398geographical mapping 398–9geographical profiling 398George, Barry 25–6Gifford report (1985) 368Gilfoyle case 242global psychological differentiation

60Gough Socialization Scale 390Gregg v. Georgia 178group identification 322Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (GSS)

388–9, 391Guildford Four 305, 386guilty knowledge test (GKT) 271, 287,

288

Haradinaj, Ramush 330headed records theory 31hearsay rule 27Hearst, Patty 292High Court of Australia 248, 325hired gun effect 233Holland v. Illinois 153Home Office, Circular 057/2003

342–3honesty tests see integrity tests






582 I n d e x

Hospital Anxiety Depression (HAD)Scale 372

Hulet case 344human attention see attentionhuman awareness training (HAT)

program 362–3human nature, conflicting models 8–10human perception see perceptionhuman super lie-detectors 278hung juries 187hypermnesia 32, 86hypnosis see forensic hypnosis

Identi-kit 341identification see person identificationidentification ability 134, 135, 136, 247identification error 326identification evidence

critique 250exclusion by the court 304importance of 245–6Turnbull warning by judges 306and wrongful conviction 309

identification line-upsaccuracy 327–8admissibility of expert witnesses 325admissibility of identification evidence

324biased instructions to witnesses

334–5composition 329–32court support for 323–4, 325double line-ups 333elimination line-ups 337feedback to witnesses after an

indentification 334guidelines for conducting 324for identification of objects 325importance of clothing 332intervening line-ups 336live line-ups 323match-to-description basis for foil

selection 330, 331measures of line-up size fairness 333misidentification 305–8multiple independent line-ups 337Multiple-Choice-Sequential-Large

(MSL) line-ups 333–4police use of biased line-ups 322–3presentation factors and bias 335–7

procedures 325–6, 329, 332purpose 325, 329same-race identification bias 328scope for foils to communicate with

witness 329sequential presentation 335–7similarity-to-suspect basis for foil

selection 331–2simultaneous or sequential

presentation and accuracy 335–6size 332–4sources of bias 329–37unreliability of evidence identification

323video line-up identification 328–9weapon effect 328what is a ‘fair’ line-up 326what is a ‘good distractor’ 331when one person stands out 329–30

identification parades see identificationline-ups

identification of personsand eyewitness research 304from a photograph prior to lineup

316from photographs 309–10, 311–12group identification 322identification parades/line-ups 322–3in-court (dock) identification 318–19photo-arrays 310show-ups/witness confrontations

316–17videotape line-ups 310–16visual methods 304

identification testschoosing a medium 310–11comparison of identification

performance 311Identi-kit 2000 338, 341The Ikarian Reefer 234illegal drugs, and witness accuracy 62illusory memories, and false allegations

and convictions of child sexualabuse 61, 93, 98, 113

Improving the Criminal Trial Process forYoung Witnesses: A ConsultationPaper 117, 118

‘Improving Interpersonal Evaluation (IIE)Interview’ 380

impulsivity of witness, and accuracy 58






I n d e x 583

in-court (dock) identification 318–19inadmissible evidence, juror’s ability to

discount 175The Indictment (film) 129Indigenous peoples of Australia,

disparities in sentencing 208–9indirect mediation 226indirect method (deception-detection)

276individual deterrence 212Industrial Relations Act 1971 (UK) 217infanticide 205, 207inquisitorial procedure 27institutional racism 368–9integration view (post-event influences on

memory) 89–91integrity tests

concerns over use 262constructs measured 262difficulties in evaluating 263honesty subscale in overt tests 262overt tests 261personality-based tests 261validity and usefulness 262–3

intellectual disability, and suggestibility129–30

intelligence level, and witness accuracy59–60

interaction process model (confessions)385

International Criminal Court (ICC),Rome Statute 223

International Criminal Tribunal for theFormer Yugoslavia 330

International War Crimes Tribunals83–4

interrogational variables and witnessaccuracy

leading questions 88–91number of efforts made to recall

86–7overview 84post-event interference 87–8retention interval 84–6type of recall 86

interrogative recall 86interviewer bias, and children’s

suggestibility 131interviewer’s emotional tone, and

children’s suggestibility 131

interviewing children in sexual abusecases

anatomical dolls 133, 143–4body maps 142–3felt board technique 142goals of interview 141interview procedure 142reducing the risk of suggestibility

140Statement Validity Analysis 141Step-Wise Interview 142Systematic Approach to Gathering

Evidence (SAGE) 141–2interviewing eyewitnesses

closing the interview 100cognitive interview (CI) 101establishing rapport 99–100guidelines regarding children and

other vulnerable witnesses 99,101

initiating and supporting a freenarrative account 100

Memorandum of Good Practice(MOGP) 99

neuro-linguistic programming 101overview 98–9PEACE model 99questioning vulnerable witnesses

100interviewing judges (sentencing studies)

204Ivan the Terrible 84–5

Jamieson v. The Queen 292Johnson case 343Johnson and Johnson case 246Johnson v. Louisianna 150–1Joiner case 237, 239–40judge–jury agreement 160‘Judgement of Memory Characteristics

Questionnaire’ (JMCQ) 298judges

gender and sentencing practices216–17

influence on jury trials 186political affiliation and decision

making 217treatment of female defendants

206–7see also judiciary; sentencers






584 I n d e x

judicial decision-makingaffect-control theory 219–20attitudinal model 218attribution theory 219as a balancing act 196challenges for researchers 220cognitive model 218descriptive models 218–19gender differences 216–17instinctive synthesis approach 197as an intuitive process 197mechanical view 196models 218story model 220

judicial discretion in sentencing 157,197–8

criticisms of 201extent of 197–8and judicial self-regulation 201justification of 197–8and reducing disparities in sentencing

217–18reduction of 157, 197–8and statutory regulation 201

judicial integrity, and corruption 214The Judicial Mind 217The Judicial Mind Revisited 217judiciary

demographic composition 214expansion in size and pwer 196provision of justifications for their

sentencing 198judicium parium 152, 153Juries Act 1974 (UK) 149–50, 165Juror Bias Scale 166juror characteristics

age 170attribution of responsibility 170authoritarianism 172conservatism 172demographic similarity to defendant

170, 173–4dogmatism 172educational standard 170gender 170ideology 170previous experience 172race 171–2relationship between attitudes and

behaviour 172

relationship to verdict 167–8reported importance of 169–74

juror competenceand comprehension of evidence

175–7in death-qualified juries 178discussion of evidence during trials

189el objeto del veredicto 190enhancement via procedural

innovations 189, 190and expert testimony 176failure to assess 175and joinder of criminal charges

180overview 192understanding and following of

judge’s instructions 177–8juror decision-making, influence of expert

testimony 251–2juror note-taking 189juror prejudice

and pre-trial publicity 169and racial discrimination

juror questions 189jury charge, and juror competence

177–8jury composition

demographically heterogeneous170

differences across jurisdications150–1

relationship to verdict 183representativeness 190

jury consulting firms 158, 164jury decision-making models

algebraic weighted average model188

Bayesian probability theory model188

cognitive story model 188stochastic Poisson process model

188jury–defendant bias 171–2jury deliberations

behaviour of jurors before retiring todeliberate 167

chances of acquittal 183differences across juridications

152






I n d e x 585

influencing factors 182–3and jury decision-making models

188–9liberation hypothesis 180, 181methods for reaching agreement

184pre-deliberation juror preferences

181process 180role of non-active jurors 184time taken to reach a verdict 182,

184–5why jurors change their minds

184–5jury eligibility 149–50jury foreperson

characteristics that predict election179

influence over outcome of deliberation179

selection and role 178–80jury research, methods since the 1980s

10jury selection

approaches to 166challenge procedure 165–8challenges for cause 165–6Juror Bias Scale 166peremptory challenges 165–6process 166recommendation for reform

190–1scientific systematic jury selection

166–7supplemental juror questionnaires

166voir dire hearings 165, 166

jury size12-person juries 149, 150role of non-active jurors 184six-person juries 183–4

jury studies 157, 158archival research 159books by ex-jurors 164ecological validity of experimental

simulation 162findings and implications 160and juror deliberation 167methods for studying juries and juror

158, 164

mock juries 161–2post-trial juror interviews 163–4questionnaire surveys 159–61shadow juries 162–3

jury systemsalarming verdicts and juror behaviour

155alternatives to trial by jury 191arguments against jury trials 154–5arguments in favour of jury trials

156and decisions in legal cases 157decline of 149, 150differences between civil law and

common law countries 150–2function of juries 156, 160historical background 149–50impartiality 152, 153and institution of trial by jury 149,

150need for reform 158, 189–91, 193notion of an impartial and fair jury

149, 150–8pre-trial publicity 168–9problematic concept of the jury

152–3and reasoned verdicts 155symbolic importance 152, 153and trial by one’s peers 152, 153voir dire hearing 149, 150

jury verdictshung juries 187impact of 157and reasoned verdicts 155unanimity requirement 149, 150,

151see also jury deliberations

jury vetting 149, 150just deserts sentencing 197–9, 201

Kane, Patrick 242–3Korsakoff’s psychosis 32, 35Kumho Tire Co. v. Patrick Carmichael

assumptions about capacity of judges239–40

details of case 237recommendations arising from case

239significance of case 239

Kupreskic, Vlatko 83–4






586 I n d e x

lawadoption of psychological findings

14conflicting approach to that of

psychology 8difficulties in bridging the gap with

psychology 5–13future relation to legal psychology

13–14goal of uniformity 11–12and memory issues 24method 9–10model of human nature 8–10potential contribution of psychology

16–18values and criteria of explanation 8see also lawyers; legal profession

law-enforcement agencies see policeforces

law-enforcement personnel see policeofficers; police recruitment

Law and Human Behaviour (journal)4

Law and Psychology Review (journal)4

Lawrence, Stephen 366, 368, 392lawyers, influence on jury trials 186layered voice analysis (LVA) 281leading questions

children’s ability to resist influence of133–4

and contamination of memory of anevent 88–9

influence on children’s testimony129–30

and suggestibility of children 133susceptibility to 133and witness accuracy 88–91

learned helplessness 241, 242Legal and Criminological Psychology 4legal profession

ambivalence regarding relevance ofpsychology 7

common ground with psychology 7future relation to legal psychology

13–14legal psychology

adoption of findings by law and legalprofession 14

definition 2

development of the field 2–5expansion of field since 1960s 3–5,

6–7future development 13–18history 1930s to 1960s 6jingoism, dogmatism and chauvinism

14need for critical perspective 18pioneering ideas and applications

2–3position within psychology 13relation to legal science and practice

13–14strengths and limitations of

experimental method 10–11see also forensic psychology;

psycholegal researchlegal psychology movement

impact on the law 3–4problems encountered 17–18

legal realism 5, 6levelling-sharpening by witness 60–1lie-detectors see polygraphslies

as an institutionalised practice 259categories 260defined 258essential components of concept of lie

259other-oriented 259reasons for people to lie 259self-oriented 259types 259ubiquitous nature 258–9see also deception

Lindbergh kidnapping case 344litigation strategies, joinder of criminal

charges 180Live Link, for child witnesses 116, 117,

119–22Lockhart v. McCree 173–4Lombroso, Cesare 282lying behaviour, beliefs about 264–6

McMartin case 129Macpherson report (1999) 368–9magistrate/judge shopping 214Magna Carta 149, 152, 153Mallard v. The Queen 247, 282Manchester Metro News 315






I n d e x 587

mandatory sentencing 199Manson v. Braithwaite 71, 319Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability (SD)

scale 359Marston, William 2, 5Maryland v. Craig (US Supreme Court)

26, 117, 118, 127matching by item studies (sentencing

studies) 203medication, and witness accuracy 62Memorandum of Good Practice (MOGP)

99, 121memory

active and constructive model 29,95–6

and anxiety 128central executive 30erroneous assumptions 29motivated forgetting 31operation of 246, 247reasons for retrieval failure 31as a social system 30theories of remembering 31three-stage processing model 30–1see also children’s memory

memory conformity effect 124memory disorders 31–2memory errors 40memory issues, importance in law 24memory monitoring 31memory performance

age-related decrements 64–5in the elderly 63metacognitive monitoring and control

processes 31peak age 64and tension arousal 47–50

memory-recovery therapiesconcerns of professional associations

93–4creation of illusory memories 93criticisms of 95false diagnoses of child sexual abuse

93refusal of funding by US insurance

companies 60support for 96types of 91–2value of reviving memories of past

traumas 97

memory-recovery therapistsneed for care in use of techniques

97vs cognitive psychologists 95

memory research, ecological validity issue11

memory wars 89men, discrimination in sentencing 206,

207–8Metsky, George 395Michaels case

amicus brief 131, 140, 232details 129

micro-expressions 269–70Minnesota Multiphase Personality

Inventory 361Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines

Commission 198Miranda v. Arizona 393misinformation effect 87–8, 103misinformation (source monitoring error)

91mistaken identification

formal recognition of dangers 305–8formal recommendations to avoid

misidentifications 305–6in line-ups 305problem of 29and wrongful conviction 25–6

Mitchell case 292mock juries, in jury studies 161–2mood, and witness accuracy 61–2mood-congruency effect 61Moore v. Medley 231morning types, and witness accuracy

59Morris Committee 179motivated forgetting 31movements (non-verbal behaviour)

267moving group identification 322mugshots see photographsMultiple-Choice-Sequential-Large (MSL)

line-ups 333–4multiple-entry modular memory model

31Munsterberg, H. 2, 5Murphy, Patrick 305Murphy v. R 246Murray v. UK 375






588 I n d e x

National Institute of Forensic Science249

National Institute of Justice, WorkingGroup on Eyewitness EvidenceGuide 306, 307, 336

Neil v. Biggers 41, 43, 71, 319neuro-linguistic programming 101neuroticism, and witness accuracy 58New Jersey v. Margaret Kelly Michaels

see Michaels casenew terrorism 400non-court penalties 199non-custodial measures 221non-verbal behaviour 267non-verbal cues to deception 266–8,

271

O’Brien, Dominic 32observational studies (sentencing studies)

203–4obsessive compulsive disorder 246offenders

age and eyewitness testimony 81shows of remorse 185see also restorative justice (RJ)

Office for Victims of Crime 222On the Witness Stand 5Opinion Deception Judgement Task 278oral evidence 27overt integrity tests 261own-race bias 65

P300 brainwave 290–1paper-and-pencil tests 261–4paramnesia 32–5Parole Index prediction method 203pathological lying 260Patton v. United States 149, 150–2PC-Eyewitness (software) 327PEACE interview model 99, 373peak of tension test 286peer pressure, and children’s

suggestibility 132penal philosophy, shift from

rehabilitation in favour of justdeserts 201

People v. Buckley see McMartin caseperception

active and constructive model 29, 30defined 30erroneous assumptions about 29

and expection 69as a social system 30

perpetrator variables and witnessaccuracy

age of offenders 81height of perpetrators 82number of perpetrators 81offender’s size 81perpetrator’s back and gait 82race and ethnicity 82whole-body information vs facial

information 81–3person identification see identification of

personsperverse acquittals 160perverse convictions, and race 171photo-arrays 308, 310, 316photo-board identification 311–12Photo-Fit (software) 339photofits, broadcasting 315photographs

accuracy of identification 315admissibility as source of

identification 312as an investigative tool 315as a method of identification 309–10misidentification 313research into use of mugshots 314State/national electronic databases

312subsequent use 312taken by police 312

physical appearance, and criminalbehaviour 67–8

physical attractivenessand deception-detection 279and witness accuracy 69

plea-bargaining 157, 199police associations, concern over effects

of stress on members 369–70police brutality 384police–citizen interaction

attitudes of citizens 364–5prejudice and discrimination 365–9

Police and Criminal Evidence Act(PACE) 1984 (UK) 29, 99, 306,307, 336, 392

Annex A 328Annex B 324Annex C 322Annex D 317






I n d e x 589

Annex E 313Code of Practice D 306, 308, 312,

318, 330Code of Practice E 375–6and police interview procedures

374power to stop and search 366–7

police detectivescore attributes 373role and status 373training in interviewing witnesses and

suspects 373police forces

crime clear-up rates 373demographic composition 356differences in difference countries

355institutional racisim 368–9prejudice and discrimination

365–9and psychological testing 357

police interrogations see policequestioning of suspects

police management, concern over effectsof stress on officers 369–70

police officersaccuracy of eyewitness testimony

75assumptions about training and recall

75–8attitudes 358–60and authoritarianism 358, 359and carrying firearms 364concerns about own personal safety

370conservatism 358, 359effects of body-handling duties

372encounters with the public 362–5ethnocentrism 359external stress 370impact of training on mind set

76–7intelligence, education and success in

force 360internal stress 370interviewing practices and witness

accuracy 80John Wayne Syndrome 360long-term effects of stress 369–70most significant stressors 371

nature of role and skills required356

negative stereotyping 367stages of early career 359–60stress and length of service 371–2stress management 372–3task-related stress 370us against them mentality 357–8values 357–8vulnerability to stress 370ways in which prejudice and

discrimination are manifest367–8

what they do while on duty 356police procedures

for interviewing witnesses 306–7regarding witness identification

308and social context 308

police psychology, history of 355police–public relations, problematic

nature of 362police questioning of suspects

admission/confession rates 374–5advice on how to question con artists

378advice on methods 378–9challenges of interviewing fraudsters

377creating resistance in suspects 381differences between US and Britain

376effectiveness in eliciting confessions

383–4emphasis on ‘investigative

interviewing’ 376feedback persuasive techniques 376goals of interrogation 376how officers approach the task

382–5Improving Interpersonal Evaluation

(IIE) Interview 380interrogative pressure 384nature of interviewing 381nine steps to securing a confession

380PACE guidelines 375–6PEACE interview model 99, 373percentage of officer time spent on

373and police brutality 384






590 I n d e x

police questioning of suspects (cont.)principles of ethical interviewing

391psychological ploys 376psychological techniques of influence

376psychologically manipulative tactics

378Reid Technique 378, 379role of detectives 373specialist interviewing (SI) 373Specialist Investigative Interviewing

(SII) 378, 379suspects who refuse to answer

questions 381–2theoretical models of confessions

384–5see also PEACE interview model;

Specialist Interviewing (SI)police race relations

combatting police stereotyping,prejudice and discrimination 369

and over-representation of ethnicminorities in arrest andimprisonment statistics 367

racial profiling in the US 365–6, 368riots in England 369treatment of ethnic minorities in

Britain 366treatment of victims of crime from

ethnic minorities 367police recruitment

assessment centres 361concurrent validation approach 360deception-detection 361immaturity index 361inability of psychological testing to

predict later performance 360–1and police subculture 358pre-dispositional model 357predicting success within the force

360–1predictive validation approach 360psychological screening of 2qualifications for entry 359qualities needed 357selection methods 356–7selection of recruits 360socialisation model 357, 359using psychometric tests 360

police subculture, induction ofprobationers 358, 364

police uniforms 362–5policing, and psychological research 355Policing Skills Training (PST) 363–4polygraphs 246, 281

admissibility of expert evidence282–3

ascertaining knowledge of specificinformation 286–8

comparison question test 284concealed knowledge technique (CKT)

287–8control question test (CQT) 284,

288countermeasures to influence test

outcomes 288–9countries where they are not used

283countries where they are used 283criticisms of 290and Daubert criteria 283, 286,

287–8directed lie control test (DLT) 286examiner influence on accuracy and

outcomes 288factors impacting on test accuracy and

outcome 288–90first development 2fooling 288formal assessments 289–90guilty knowledge test (GKT) 287,

288history of use 282peak of tension test 286relevant–irrelevant question test

284scoring the polygraph chart 283searching peak of tension test 286techniques used 284–6what they do 283

post-event interference, andinterrogational variables 87–8

post-event misinformation, and effect onoriginal memory 89–91

post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)241, 242, 246

post-trial juror interviews 163–4Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing)

Act 2000 (UK) 199






I n d e x 591

Powers v. Ohio 152, 153pre-trial publicity 168–9prediction studies (sentencing studies)

203Privy Council, Star Chamber sittings

149, 150–8procedural memory, decline of 63profiling offenders 393–4

Circle Theory of EnvironmentalRange 399

Criminal Geographic Targeting(software) 398

FBI profiling 395–6profiling defined 394psychological profiling evidence 242,

247statistical/actuarial profiling 396–9techniques and methodological

frameworks 399victim search methods 398

PROfit (software) 338, 341prosecutorial discretion 157Protocol for Judicial Case Management

in Public Law Children Act Cases252

pseudological fantastica 260psychoanalytic models of confessions

385psycholegal jurisprudence 16psycholegal research

application of general principles toindividual cases 12–13

in Australia 18failure to look at big picture 15future challenges 407–8gaps in knowledge 407–8imbalance in focus 406knowledge of procedural and

substantive law 14, 15and legal implications of studies 12,

28methods 18nature and focus 2, 6–7, 406and policy formation 12–13practical importance of studies 28restrictions on field experiments 14scope 13, 14, 16–17, 407

psychological differentiation, articulatedvs global 60

psychological pharmacology 62

psychological profiling see FBI profiling;profiling offenders

psychological stress evaluator (PSE)280–1

psychologistscommon ground with lawyers 7ethical dilemmas associated with

providing expert testimony 13increasing demand as expert witnesses

230psychology

applications to law 2areas in which psychologists are in

demand as expert witnesses 230competing theories and perspectives

11–12conflicting approach to that of law to

key issues 8difficulties in bridging the gap with

law 5–13efforts to bridge gap with lawmodel of human nature 8–10and policing 355position of legal psychology 13potential contribution to law 16–18research methods 9scientific method and criteria of

explanation 8study of deception 260varying approaches to scientific

experimentation 10–11see also legal psychology; social

psychologyPsychology in the Courts: International

Advances in Knowledge 4Psychology, Crime and Law 4psychology in law 2psychology and law 2psychology of law 2Psychology, Law and Legal Processes

4Psychology in Legal Contexts:

Applications and Limitations 4The Psychology of Personal Identification

4Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law

4psychology of terrorism 399–400psychometric tests, use in selection of

police recruits 357






592 I n d e x

psychopathy see antisocial personalitydisorder (psychopathy)

questionnairesjury studies 159–61supplemental juror questionnaires

166Quinn case 330

R v. B. 246R v. Bartlett 92, 247R v. Beland 282R v. Bowman 234, 242R v. Brown 248R v. Calder 248R v. Clark 247R v. Da Sylva 39R v. Felin 108R v. Fong 246R v. George 25–6R v. Harris 234, 235, 242,

326R v. Jamel 322R v. Jenkyns 247–8R v. Johnson 317R v. Johnston 248–9R v. Jones and Nelson 317R v. Jumeaux 92R v. Kai-Whitewind 235R v. Khan and Bains 343R v. Leilua 246R v. Letizia 186–7R v. McCarthy 247R v. McFelin 247R v. Marcus 328R v. Martin and Nicholls 324R v. Maxwell 166R v. Mohan 247, 249R v. Murray 246, 282R v. Oakwell 307R v. O’Doherty 342R v. Ranger 247R v. Robb 241R v. Sally Loraine Emery see Emery

caseR v. Smith 246R v. Taaka 246R v. Tilley 292R v. Turnbull 43, 245R v. Turner see Turner case

raceand death penalty 172of judge and sentencing disparities in

the US 217and juror prejudice 171and jury composition 171–2and perverse convictions 171same-race identification bias 328and sentencing disparities in Britain

209–10and sentencing disparities in the US

210–11and treatment of Indigenous peoples

of Australia 208–9and victim/plaintiff characteristics

185and witness accuracy 65, 82

race riots 366, 369racial discrimination

by police 365–9combatting in police forces 369and criminal justice policy 212in criminal justice system 208and social policy 212

racial profiling, by US police 365–6, 368racial stereotypes 68random sample studies (sentencing

studies) 203rape victims, stereotypical beliefs about

68–9, 170rational decision-making 11–12Ray’s (1972) Balanced F (BF) scale 359reality monitoring 297–8recall 86–7recognition

age-own bias 64and own-race bias 65

recognition errors, among the elderly 64recovered memories

child abuse allegations 93and concept of repression 31defined 91see also memory-recovery therapies;

memory-recovery therapistsrecovered memory vs false memory

debate 95–8recruit training questionnaire (RTQ)

363reflection, and accuracy of eyewitness

testimony 58






I n d e x 593

rehabilitation, and sentencing 197, 201Reid model of confessions 385relevant–irrelevant question test 284Reno, Janet 306repeating of misinformation 131repeating questions 116repressed memory syndrome 93, 96,

247repression of memory

controversy over 31defined 91rarity of 95rejection of concept of massive

repression 94restorative justice (RJ)

applications 225centrality of offender’s apology 224and conflicts as property 224criticisms 226development of theory 224–5difference from sentencing 224–5distinguished from retribution and

rehabilitation 224evaluating 225implementation of programs 223–4key values 225merits 225objectives 225origins 223reasons for victim’s choosing

approach 225supporting evidence for effectiveness

226and victims of crime 221victims’ reasons for 225

retention interval, and accuracy ofeyewitness testimony 84–6

retributive terrorism 400Review of the Criminal Courts of

England and Wales see AuldReport

Revised Impact of Event Scale 372Ring v. Arizona 174–85Rogers case 318Rokeach Value Survey 357Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale 391Roskill Committee 176Royal College of Psychiatrists (UK),

Working Group on RecoveredMemories 94

Royal Commission on Criminal Justice(1993) 163, 176, 255, 387

Royal Commission on CriminalProcedure 289

Runciman Report see Royal Commissionon Criminal Justice (1993)

same-race identification bias 328Sapir, Avinoam 298SC v. United Kingdom 117–18Scarman Report (1981) 368schemas 67, 69schemata theory 31scientific content analysis (SCAN)

application 299coding 299development 298forensic utility 299underpinning assumptions 298–9

searching peak of tension test 286secondary victimisation 220self-monitoring, and witness accuracy

60self-presentation approach (non-verbal

cues for deception-detection)267–8

semantic memory, decline of 63sentencers

and demographic composition ofjudiciary 214

difficulties of task 199–200misbehaviour 214relationship to sentence severity 215and sentencing culture of jurisdiction

214and sentencing disparities 214–15

sentencingconsistency in 200judicial discretion 157just deserts 197–9as public face of criminal justice

process 199and rehabilitation 197and the right sentence 200as a science or an art 196

sentencing disparitiesand defendant’s attractiveness

213–14and defendant’s gender 205–8and defendant’s race 208–12






594 I n d e x

sentencing disparities (cont.)eliminating by training of judges

197extralegal factors 202, 205and gender of sentencer 216–17interaction of legal and extralegal

factors 202international concern 200legal factors 202measures to reduce racial

discrimination 212and political affiliation of judges

217and race of judge 217reasons for 200–1reducing 217–18and the sentencer 214–15

sentencing guidelines 198Sentencing Guidelines Commission (US)

198Sentencing Guidelines Council (England)

198sentencing policy, growing politicisation

of 196sentencing studies

crude comparison studies 203experimental studies 204interviewing judges 204matching by item studies 203need for scale to measure sentence

severity 205observational studies 203–4prediction studies 203random sample studies 203research methods for studying

variations in sentencing 202–5role of 201

Sex and Power (report) 216sexism, in sentencing 206sexual assault victims, participation in the

criminal justice system 92–3,96–7

shadow juries, use in jury studies 162–3show-ups/witness confrontations

316–17admissibility of identification evidence

317, 318, 319arguments against use 319–20identification procedure 316–17risk of bias 319

witness identification accuracy320–2

‘Silent Talker’ 280simulated crime methodology, in

eyewitness testimony research38

single case studies, in eyewitnesstestimony research 32–3, 36–7

slide presentations, in eyewitnesstestimony research 34, 37–8

social psychological approach todeception-detection

beliefs about lying behaviour264–6

cognitive load on liar 276non-verbal cues to deception

266–8processes experienced by liars during

deception 267–8traditional interview technique

compared to CI technique 268verbal cues to deception 268wrongful beliefs about cues to

deception 266social psychology 6sociological jurisprudence 5sociology of knowledge 136software, face composites 338source attribution errors 133source monitoring errors 91Specialist Interviewing (SI) 373Specialist Investigative Interviewing (SII)

378, 379Specialty Guidelines for Forensic

Psychologists 5staged events, in eyewitness testimony

research 34–8State v. Driver 3statement reality/validity analysis (SVA)

applications of 294–5criteria-based-content analysis

(CBCA) criteria 293–4development of 292main elements 293potential use in court proceedings

295–7theoretical basis of technique 293validity check-list items 294

Statement Validity Analysis 141Statements of Opinion 221






I n d e x 595

stationary group identification 322statistical/actuarial profiling 396–9Step-Wise Interview 140–1stereotypes

and accuracy of eyewitness testimony67–9

and children’s suggestibility 132defined 67–8and voices 342

Stevens, John 397stochastic Poisson process model (jury

decision-making) 188Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE technique)

242stress

categories 370long-term effects for police officers

369–70stress management, for police 372–3stylometry

admissibility of stylometric evidence292

focus of 291–2suggestibility of children see children’s

suggestibilitysuggestibility of vulnerable witnesses

243, 387, 388suggestibility of witnesses, limitations of

experimental simulation 32, 35supplemental juror questionnaires 166suppression of memory 91, 95survey studies, in eyewitness testimony

research 33, 37survivors of crime 220suspects 326system variables, in study of eyewitness

memory 39Systematic Approach to Gathering

Evidence (SAGE) 141–2

TARA (timed antagonistic responsealethiometer) 280

tension arousaland eyewitness performance 47–50relationship to cognitive efficiency

46–7relationship to memory 47and unreliability of laboratory testing

47–8Terman, Louis, 2

terrorismcauses, threat and impact 401defined 400psychology of 399–400

Terrorism Act 2000 (UK) 369terrorists

age, gender and education 402characteristics and motivations

401–3identity and radicalisation 402religious vs nationalist motives 403

The Queen v. McCrossen 292Thomas case 318Titchner, Edward 6Toscanini, Arturo 32trace-alteration account 88transracial identification 244trauma, defined 91traumatic amnesia 26–8traumatised victims, interviewing 104trial by jury see jury systemstrial by one’s peers 152, 153trial by ordeal 149, 150trial tactics 186truth-bias 269, 272, 273Turnbull Guidelines 245, 343Turnbull and others 306Turnbull warning 307, 337, 342, 344Turner case 240Turner rule

application and impact 241–6assumptions regarding human

behaviour 240–1common knowledge and experience

rule of evidence 240, 242relation between psychology and

common sense 240

ultimate issue rule (admission of expertevidence) 233

unconscious transferenceempirical literature 314–15expert testimony 243–4nature of 314theoretical approaches 314

United States, psychologists as expertwitnesses 233

United States v. PlazaUS Congress Office of Technology

Assessment (OTA) 262–3






596 I n d e x

US ConstitutionArticle III 168Eighth Amendment 182Fifth Amendment – Due Process

Clause 168Fourteenth Amendment 153proposed Crime Victims’ Rights

Amendment 222Sixth Amendment 27, 118, 152, 153,

173–4US Department of Defence, report on

polygraphs 289US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

(FRCP) 168, 180US Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) 93,

236FRE 601 115FRE 702 238

US v. Hearst 292US v. Schefer 283

Varendonck, J. 230veracity effect see truth-biasverbal cues to deception 268, 271verbal descriptions of suspects 340‘verbal overshadowing’ 341ViCLAS (Violent Crime Linkage Analysis

System) 396victim, concept of 220victim advocacy 222Victim Impact Statements 221victim–offender mediation programs

221, 224victim/plaintiff characteristics

interaction with defendantcharacteristics 186

interaction effect between age and race185

in jury trials 185victim precipitation 220Victim Statements 221Victim and Witness Protection Act 1982

(US) 222Victims’ Charter 222victims of crime

attitudes towards offenders 221changed role in trials 221legal rights 221–2legal rights in international law 223offender characteristics recalled 70

participation in criminal trials 221recovering from victimisation

experience 222–3study into 220treatment by criminal justice system

221and witness accuracy 69–70

Victims’ Rights Amendments 222video footage identification 337Video Identification Parade Electronic

Recording (VIPER) 327video line-up identification 308,

328–9video-link (live), for child witnesses

116, 117, 119–22Violent Sexual Offenders 4visual witness identification 304vocal characteristics 267voice identification

abusive language 345and accents 347accuracy 344, 350–1age of earwitness 348blind listeners 349characteristics of the voice 345circumstances under which voice is

heard 344–5delay and retention interval 347–8disguised voices 346earwitness confidence and accuracy

349expert testimony 326experts’ accuracy 349familiar voices 346forensic utility 350–1formal guidelines for admissible

evidence 342–3gender of earwitness 348guidelines for 306hearing same voice repeatedly 347humans vs machine 344identification procedure used 350and language familiarity 346–7listener characteristics 348and number of voices 344and passively heard voices 345post-event interference 349–50and presence of a weapon 345race of speaker and earwitness 348reliability 344






I n d e x 597

stereotypes about voices 342training to enhance accuracy 349when speaker is under stress 345

voice stress analysis 280–1voir dire hearings

function of 165and honesty of jurors 166influence over 166

vulnerable witnessesand cognitive interviews 103–4and false confessions 387guidelines for interviewing 99–101most common vulnerabilities 390suggestibility of 243, 387, 388suggesting they seek therapeutic help

101

Wagenaar, Willem 83–4, 85–6, 330Wainwright v. Witt 153Washington Sentencing Reform Act 1984

(US) 208weapon effect 328weapon-focus effect 50–3Whitbread v. The Queen 248Williams and Colgrove 183Williams v. Florida 184Willicroft 196, 197Witherspoon v. Illinois 173witness characteristics and accuracy

age 63–5alcohol abuse 62and breadth of categorising 60cognitive style 60confidence 70–5extroversion 58gender 66–7illegal drug abuse 62intelligence 59–60levelling-sharpening 60–1

medication 62mood 61–2morning or evening types 59need for approval/affiliation 58–9neuroticism 58number of witnesses 78–80physical attractiveness 69race 65reflection/impulsivity 58schemas/stereotypes 67–9self-monitoring 60whether witness is a police officer 75whether witness is also a victim of the

crime 69–70witness communication-persuasion model

72witness confidence

and accuracy of testimony 70–5importance in adversarial system 70influence on jurors 175

witness confrontations seeshow-ups/witness confrontations

witness credibility 71and age 135and demeanour 264police preconceptions prior to

interviewing 265–6witness reliability 70Wizard Project 278women

discrimination in sentencing 206,207–8

in legal profession 216wrongful convictions, percentage of 309

Yerkes–Dodson law 46–7Youth, Justice and Criminal Evidence

Act (YJCEA) 1999 (UK) 115,116–17






More information - Cambridge University...

Documents

Transcript of More information - Cambridge University...