Mark A. Small

Eyewitness Identification Procedures: Recommendations for Lineups and Photospreads

There is increasing evidence that false eyewitness identification is the primary cause of the conviction of innocent people. In 1996, the American Psychology/Law Society and Division 41 of the American Psychological Association appointed a subcommittee to review scientific evidence and make recommendations regarding the best procedures for constructing and conducting lineups and photospreads. Three important themes from the scientific literature relevant to lineup methods were identified and reviewed, namely relative-judgment processes, the lineups-as-experiments analogy, and confidence malleability. Recommendations are made that double-blind lineup testing should be used, that eyewitnesses should be forewarned that the culprit might not be present, that distractors should be selected based on the eyewitnesss verbal description of the perpetrator, and that confidence should be assessed and recorded at the time of identification. The potential costs and benefits of these recommendations are discussed.

Evaluations of Competency to be Executed: Legal Contours and Implications for Assessment

With the Supreme Courts decision in Ford v. Wainwright (1986), and the increasing numbers of persons sentenced to death, mental health professionals working in criminal settings can anticipate increased involvement in proceedings examining a condemned prisoners competency to be executed. This article explores the legal context and clinical aspects of such evaluations. First, the substantive legal test and legal procedures surrounding an assessment of competency to be executed are presented. Salient elements of the legal process of determining competency are discussed. Next, assessment techniques are reviewed. Finally, the issue of mental health professionals answering the ultimate legal issue, as applied to competency to be executed evaluations, is addressed.

Social Cognition and Tort Law: The Roles of Basic Science and Social Engineering

This chapter advocates a partnership between cognitive sodal psychology and the law of torts. The common subject matter of sodal psychology and tort doctrine is the manner in which human beings interact with each other. Psychology, however, takes a descriptive and inferential approach to the study of sodal behavior, and tort law formulates normative proscriptions to judge wrongful interactions. Insights may be gained about both enterprises if one is willing to view sodal psychology as basic science and tort law as sodal engineering. In this realist view (Manicas & Secord, 1983) of sodal psychology and the law, the researcher employs tradition al experimental methods to study the underlying causal mechanisms that give rise to litigation. However, a complete understanding of sodal psychology in the legal system requires the supplemental use of qualitative techniques, espedaHy case study and ethnographic methodologies. The goal of the realist approach to sodal psychology and tort law is to further our understanding of complex sodal behavior, while at the same time to impact the doctrines and practice of the law. This chapter is an attempt to explore some of the implications of the basic analogy in which cognitive sodal psychology is viewed as basic science and tort law as sodal engineering. Tort law is a set of doctrines that shape behavior by inputting some basic guidelines into the cognitive systems of people. If the law is successful, we plan our sodal behavior according to the doctrines. Thus, law should be informed about the manner in which people input, process, and store sodal information, as weH as the ways in which we judge others and make dedsions. The relationship between sodal cognition and tort law will be explored in three sections: a discussion of some of the basic doctrines of tort law, a review of some of the literature in sodal cognition that has research implications for torts, and suggestions for a program of applied research.

The Legal Context of Mentally Disordered Sex Offender (MDSO) Treatment Programs

The constitutional and empirical viability of “mentally disordered sex offender” statutes is reviewed in light of recent research and litigation. A brief history of legislative activity shows that, after an initial flurry of enacting such statutes, many states began repealing them. In spite of this retrenchment, other states have established new programs either through modifying existing statutes or enacting new ones. The relationship of “mentally disordered sex offender” legislation to treatment is discussed within a range of current state programs. An understanding of the legal context in which treatment programs operate is critical to addressing ultimate questions of treatment efficacy and sex offender recidivism.

The normative foundation of social science in law revisited: A reply to melton

ConclusionThe primary thrust of Meltons argument is that “opposition by organized psychology to the Bork nomination would have been consistent with the jurisprudential philosophy on which social science in law, as a scholarly movement, is based” (p. 317). If APA is to justify opposition to Bork or future Supreme Court nominations (e.g., Souter), there should be a clearly identified normative foundation that directly leads to such advocacy. A stance based partly upon scholarship thatimplies reverence for constitutional values and partly upon preambles and principles of an ethical code is too slender a reed from which to cast APAs institutional support for a Supreme Court candidate. When such a stance is adopted, APA unfortunately becomes one of an increasing number of organizations attempting to influence political decisions by claiming allegiance to values consistent with democracy.Advocacy based on a normative foundation of social science in law jurisprudence could be justified by APA if, and only if, (a) there is an identifiable SSL jurisprudence, (b) there is consensus on the values underlying such a jurisprudence, and (c) adherence to these values argues against the nomination of Bork or others (e.g., Souter) to the Supreme Court. Because these conditions currently cannot be met, organized opposition to Supreme Court nominations cannot be justified on a normative foundation of SSL jurisprudence.

Rethinking Privacy Torts: A View Toward a Psycholegal Perspective

Privacy torts (and torts in general) have been a neglected area of psycholegal research. The lack of research in this area can be partially explained by ethical and methodological constraints, which make it difficult to conduct privacy research. Most empirical studies have measured privacy as an attitude, interest, or value. Unfortunately, many of these studies do not translate easily into assessing the behavioral assumptions contained in judicial opinions and made by legal commentators. However, with a proper understanding of the legal treatment of privacy, there is great opportunity for psychologists to assess the validity of legal assumptions about privacy and inform policy makers. The purpose of this chapter is to facilitate the task of conducting psycholegal research on privacy by exploring strategies that are appropriate to conducting research on privacy torts.

Expanding Privacy Protection in the United States: Lessons from Abroad

In a preliminary effort to define a global normative account of privacy, a comparison is undertaken between the protection privacy is accorded citizens of the United States and citizens of other countries. First, examples are drawn that illustrate how the interpretation of privacy in criminal cases of sodomy and abortion in the United States differs from national and international interpretations. Second, a description is made of different international legal approaches to protecting privacy. The significance of an international comparison for expanding privacy protection in the United States is discussed.