Theory and Practice in Forensic Psychology1

GRAHAM M. DAVIES, ANTHONY R. BEECH, AND MELISSA F. COLLOFF

CHAPTER OUTLINE

• FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY
  • Legal Psychology
  • Criminological Psychology
• HOW TO BECOME A FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGIST
  • Professional Organisations for Forensic Psychologists
• STRUCTURE AND CONTENT OF THE BOOK
  • Part 1: The Causes of Crime
  • Part 2: Investigating Crime
  • Part 3: The Trial Process
  • Part 4: Dealing with Offenders
  • Part 5: Forensic Psychology: Emerging Issues, Future Challenges

Forensic psychology is a broad and growing area of psychological research and practice. It embraces a variety of studies at the interface of psychology and the law, spanning both legal and criminological issues. The legal aspect of forensic psychology concerns the application of psychological knowledge and methods to the processes of law and the criminological aspect deals with the application of psychological theory and method to the understanding (and reduction) of criminal behaviour through interventions. Hence, the legal aspect deals with evidence, witnesses, and the courts, while the criminological aspect focuses on crime and perpetrators. Among the range of tasks undertaken by forensic psychologists can be:

• piloting and implementing treatment programmes for offenders
• generating research evidence to support penal policy and practice
• undertaking assessments of risk for violent and sexual offenders
• domestic violence and family issues
• treating offenders with drug or alcohol problems
• writing reports and giving evidence in court
• advising parole boards and mental health tribunals
• crime analysis and offender profiling
• conducting experimental and field studies on the reliability of witnesses
• advising on interview techniques with suspects and vulnerable witnesses
• counter-terrorism policy and hostage negotiation

The umbrella term forensic psychology is used to embrace both legal and criminological research and application, even though the term forensic strictly means the employment of scientific tests, or techniques, used in connection with the detection of crime. As the issue of crime and offending continues to grow in importance in society, it seems inevitable that policymakers will turn increasingly to forensic psychology to answer questions such as "what makes a person commit a crime?" and "how can crime be reduced?" Therefore, the aim of this book is to give a broad outline of current topics in psychology ranging from the causes of crime (Part 1), investigating crime (Part 2), the trial process (Part 3), and dealing with perpetrators (Part 4). It also looks forward to future developments in the field through the eyes of leading researchers and practitioners in the field (Part 5).

FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY

To understand how forensic psychology emerged as the high-profile psychological science it is today, it is useful to begin by examining briefly the roots of both legal psychology and criminological psychology before describing the professional pathways into forensic psychology and the principal organisations and journals which support the discipline, followed by an overview of the structure and content of the book.

Legal Psychology

Legal psychology was one of the first areas of applied psychology to be explored by experimental psychologists. It then languished as a discipline until the 1970s when there was a great resurgence of interest in research at the interface of psychology and law, which continues today. Legal psychology began in Europe around the turn of the twentieth century (see Davies & Gudjonsson, 2013). Prominent among these pioneers was the Austrian Hans Gross (1847-1915), who, in his career, claimed to have performed over 45,000 pre-trial examinations of witnesses. As a result of his experiences, he became sceptical about eyewitness testimony and developed tests to try to identify those who might prove reliable. He described his experiences in probably the first textbook of legal psychology, Kriminalpsychologie (Criminal Psychology), published in 1898.

One issue of concern to Gross was the suggestibility of witnesses under questioning. The French Psychologist, Alfred Binet (1857-1911), had conducted some of the earliest studies of suggestibility and conformity effects in children, described in his book La Suggestibilité (1900), and these ideas were taken up by the German Psychologist Louis William Stern (1871-1938). It was Stern who, as part of his programme of research into what he termed the Psychologie der Aussage (the psychology of statements; Sterne, 1902), started the first journal devoted to witness psychology. Stern also introduced new methods such as the "event test": a carefully rehearsed incident staged in front of onlookers who were subsequently asked to report the events in their own words and answer questions concerning details-a technique still in use today. Suggestibility, particularly in relation to vulnerable witnesses and its impact on their testimony, remains a focus of current research (see Ridley et al., 2012, and Chapters 6 and 7 of this book).

The Aussage movement continued to be active in Germany up until the First World War, but the person credited with publicising the new science to the English-speaking world was Stern's friend, Hugo Münsterberg (1863-1916). Münsterberg moved from Germany to Harvard University in 1892 to accept an invitation from William James to set up their first experimental psychology laboratory. Münsterberg's interests in psychological aspects of the law went well beyond issues of testimony. In 1908 he published On the Witness Stand, a book aimed at publicising and promoting the value of psychology to law enforcement in general and the courts in particular. Among the topics discussed by Münsterberg (1908) were:

• The accuracy of witness testimony
• The detection of deception
• False confessions
• Suggestive questioning at court, and
• Effective interviewing procedures

Sadly, the emergence of Münsterberg's book did not usher in a new dawn for legal psychology. Its somewhat bombastic tone, and casual generalisations, alienated lawyers (he dismissed them as "obdurate"), precisely the group to whom the implications of the book might most usefully have been directed. It drew from the distinguished American jurist, John H. Wigmore (1863-1943) a majestic rebuke in the form of a satirical account of an imaginary trial in which Münsterberg's more specious and expansive statements were held up to ridicule (Wigmore, 1909). Wigmore did concede that while psychology had little to offer to the law at present, there might come a time when psychology would have matured sufficiently to make a significant contribution. This rejection of Münsterberg's ideas was followed by his death in 1916, which effectively ended the study of legal psychology in the United States for many years. When interest in legal psychology revived in the 1970s, most of the topics Münsterberg identified remained central to contemporary research, together with new themes arising from the stresses of modern-day living.

One of the principal drivers for the renewed involvement of psychologists in legal matters were concerns about mistaken identification, which had led to miscarriages of justice. In the United Kingdom, Lord Justice Devlin (1976) was asked by the Home Office to conduct an enquiry into a series of cases involving mistaken identity, sometimes by more than one witness. The Devlin Report (1976) into law and practice on identification was the first in the United Kingdom to include evidence taken from psychologists on perception and identification. One of its recommendations was that "research should be directed as to establishing ways in which the insights of psychology can be brought to bear on the conduct of identification parades and the practice of the courts" (p. 149). This led directly to Home Office funding for research into bodily (Shepherd et al., 1982) and voice identification (Bull & Clifford, 1984); and, in turn, to a more positive approach generally toward the value of psychological research as applied to the police and the law (Kebbell & Davies, 2006). Research on identification issues remains a major theme in contemporary forensic research (see Valentine & Davis, 2015, Chapter 6, and Wixted, in Part 5 of this book).

In the United States, the involvement of psychologists in witness testimony took a rather different turn. In the United Kingdom, psychologists with expertise in witness matters are not generally permitted to give evidence in criminal trials, with limited exceptions, such as issues of alleged false confession (Gudjonsson, 2003). In the United States, Elizabeth Loftus and Robert Buckhout (1935-1990)...