User:Morrisse95/Forensic psychology: Difference between revisions
Morrisse95 (talk | contribs) →References: added to the job prospects statistics for psychologist |
Morrisse95 (talk | contribs) Publish change, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Forensic_psychology&action=edit |
||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
In 1969, the [[American Psychology–Law Society]] was founded, later being converted into Division 41 of the APA in 1980. As the field continued to grow, more organizations supported the application of psychology to the law. In 1976, the American Board of Forensic Psychology was chartered, eventually becoming part of the [[American Board of Professional Psychology]] in 1985. Organizations and conferences later aided in solidifying the development of forensic psychology, such as the American Academy of Forensic Psychology and the National Invitational Conference on Education and Training in Forensic Psychology. By 2001, forensic psychology was recognized as a professional specialty by the American Psychological Association. |
In 1969, the [[American Psychology–Law Society]] was founded, later being converted into Division 41 of the APA in 1980. As the field continued to grow, more organizations supported the application of psychology to the law. In 1976, the American Board of Forensic Psychology was chartered, eventually becoming part of the [[American Board of Professional Psychology]] in 1985. Organizations and conferences later aided in solidifying the development of forensic psychology, such as the American Academy of Forensic Psychology and the National Invitational Conference on Education and Training in Forensic Psychology. By 2001, forensic psychology was recognized as a professional specialty by the American Psychological Association. |
||
In 1993, the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical<ref>{{Cite web |title=Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/509/579/ |access-date=2024-02-04 |website=Justia Law |language=en}}</ref> introduced the standard of admissibility when an expert witness is on the stand. The case started after the parents of Jason Daubert and Eric Schuller, sued Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals after their children were born with serious birth defects due to a drug called Bendectin<ref>{{Citation |title=Pyridoxine/doxylamine |date=2023-05-08 |work=Wikipedia |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyridoxine/doxylamine&oldid=1153885023 |access-date=2024-02-25 |language=en}}</ref>. After moving the case to federal court, then Merrell Dow moved for summary judgement when they submitted documents show that there was no published scientific study demonstrating any links between the drug Bendectin and birth defects. Then Daubert and Schuller submitted expert evidence as well, showing that Bendectin did cause birth defects, based on ''in vitro'' and i''n vivo'' animal studies, pharmacological studies and reanalysis of other published studies. At the time of the case these methodologies of evidence were not considered to be acceptable. The summary judgement was granted to Merrell Dow, the parents appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit had only granted summary judgment because the plantiffs' proffered evidence that were accepted as a reliable technique by scientist. The reason it was granted to Merrell Dow was because at the time of the case the Frye standard was considered the correct standard of evidence.<ref name=":0">{{Citation |title=Daubert standard |date=2023-03-30 |work=Wikipedia |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daubert_standard&oldid=1147326967 |access-date=2024-02-04 |language=en}}</ref> This Daubert standard eventually became the standard used by the U.S. Supreme Court. The standard is considered to be apart of the Federal Rules of Evidence, this also includes the admissibility of evidence as well. The Supreme Court reversed, and remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Through the remand, the court was able to analyze the evidence presented under the new standard and decided to uphold the district court's original grant of summary judgement for the defendant.<ref>{{Citation |title=Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. |date=Argued and Submitted March 22, 1994 |volume=43 |pages=1311 |url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14286809434668137766 |access-date=2024-02-25}}</ref> Because of this case ruling the Daubert standard was considered by the U.S. Supreme Court, the old Frye standard while being used more by most states, has been slowly overturned and no longer referencing to it. |
|||
Modern forensic psychological research applies psychological methodology to legal contexts. In the 1980s, [[Saul Kassin]], a psychology professor at the [[John Jay College of Criminal Justice]] in New York, published a series of papers on [[False confession|false confessions]]. One of Kassin's articles was instrumental in overturning the convictions of five boys who had been falsely convicted of the rape of a jogger. At the [[University of Liverpool]], [[David Canter|David V. Canter]] is credited with the creation of the term [[investigative psychology]], a sub-specialization of forensic psychology that pertains to of criminal behavior and the investigative process. Through the psychological profiling of the [[John Duffy and David Mulcahy|Railway Rapists]], Canter assisted in the capture of the killers. The 20th-century psychologist [[William Stern (psychologist)|William Stern]], conducted numerous experiments on eyewitness testimony, credibility, consistency, and the influence of leading questions in court. |
Modern forensic psychological research applies psychological methodology to legal contexts. In the 1980s, [[Saul Kassin]], a psychology professor at the [[John Jay College of Criminal Justice]] in New York, published a series of papers on [[False confession|false confessions]]. One of Kassin's articles was instrumental in overturning the convictions of five boys who had been falsely convicted of the rape of a jogger. At the [[University of Liverpool]], [[David Canter|David V. Canter]] is credited with the creation of the term [[investigative psychology]], a sub-specialization of forensic psychology that pertains to of criminal behavior and the investigative process. Through the psychological profiling of the [[John Duffy and David Mulcahy|Railway Rapists]], Canter assisted in the capture of the killers. The 20th-century psychologist [[William Stern (psychologist)|William Stern]], conducted numerous experiments on eyewitness testimony, credibility, consistency, and the influence of leading questions in court. |
Revision as of 04:34, 3 March 2024
![]() | This is the sandbox page where you will draft your initial Wikipedia contribution.
If you're starting a new article, you can develop it here until it's ready to go live. If you're working on improvements to an existing article, copy only one section at a time of the article to this sandbox to work on, and be sure to use an edit summary linking to the article you copied from. Do not copy over the entire article. You can find additional instructions here. Remember to save your work regularly using the "Publish page" button. (It just means 'save'; it will still be in the sandbox.) You can add bold formatting to your additions to differentiate them from existing content. |
Article Draft
Lead
Forensic psychology is the practice of psychology applied to the law. Forensic psychology is the application of scientific knowledge and methods to help answer legal questions arising in criminal, civil, contractual, or other judicial proceedings. Forensic psychology includes research on various psychology-law topics, such as jury selection, reducing systemic racism in criminal law, eyewitness testimony, evaluating competency to stand trial, or assessing military veterans for service-connected disability compensation. The American Psychological Association's Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists reference several psychology subdisciplines, such as social, clinical, experimental, counseling, and neuropsychology.
Article body
As early as the 19th century, criminal profiling began to emerge, with the Jack the Ripper case being the first instance of criminal profiling, by forensic doctor and surgeon Thomas Bond. In the first decade of the 20th century, Hugo Münsterberg, the first director of Harvard's psychological laboratory and a student of Wilhelm Wundt, one of the first experimental psychologists, authored On the Witness Stand. In the publication, Münsterberg attempted to demonstrate how psychological research could be applied in legal proceedings. Sigmund Freud also discussed how psychopathological processes play a role in criminal behavior. Other significant early figures in forensic psychology include Lightner Witmer, and William Healy.
In 1917, the lie detector was invented by the psychologist William Marston. Six years after its invention, Marston brought his lie detector to court in the case of Frye v. United States at the request of James A. Frye's attorneys, who hoped Marston's device would prove their client's innocence. The results were not deemed admissible, due to lie detection not being widely accepted in the scientific community. This led to the creation of the Frye standard, which states scientific evidence is only admissible when it has prominent standing within the scientific community.
The 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, was the first where the Supreme Court of the United States referenced expert opinions by psychologists. After this, the preponderance of psychological mechanisms within courtrooms began to be considered beneficial. Several years after the Brown ruling, Justice David Bazelon of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that psychologists had the legal authority to testify as medical experts about mental illness.
In 1969, the American Psychology–Law Society was founded, later being converted into Division 41 of the APA in 1980. As the field continued to grow, more organizations supported the application of psychology to the law. In 1976, the American Board of Forensic Psychology was chartered, eventually becoming part of the American Board of Professional Psychology in 1985. Organizations and conferences later aided in solidifying the development of forensic psychology, such as the American Academy of Forensic Psychology and the National Invitational Conference on Education and Training in Forensic Psychology. By 2001, forensic psychology was recognized as a professional specialty by the American Psychological Association.
In 1993, the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical[1] introduced the standard of admissibility when an expert witness is on the stand. The case started after the parents of Jason Daubert and Eric Schuller, sued Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals after their children were born with serious birth defects due to a drug called Bendectin[2]. After moving the case to federal court, then Merrell Dow moved for summary judgement when they submitted documents show that there was no published scientific study demonstrating any links between the drug Bendectin and birth defects. Then Daubert and Schuller submitted expert evidence as well, showing that Bendectin did cause birth defects, based on in vitro and in vivo animal studies, pharmacological studies and reanalysis of other published studies. At the time of the case these methodologies of evidence were not considered to be acceptable. The summary judgement was granted to Merrell Dow, the parents appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit had only granted summary judgment because the plantiffs' proffered evidence that were accepted as a reliable technique by scientist. The reason it was granted to Merrell Dow was because at the time of the case the Frye standard was considered the correct standard of evidence.[3] This Daubert standard eventually became the standard used by the U.S. Supreme Court. The standard is considered to be apart of the Federal Rules of Evidence, this also includes the admissibility of evidence as well. The Supreme Court reversed, and remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Through the remand, the court was able to analyze the evidence presented under the new standard and decided to uphold the district court's original grant of summary judgement for the defendant.[4] Because of this case ruling the Daubert standard was considered by the U.S. Supreme Court, the old Frye standard while being used more by most states, has been slowly overturned and no longer referencing to it.
Modern forensic psychological research applies psychological methodology to legal contexts. In the 1980s, Saul Kassin, a psychology professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, published a series of papers on false confessions. One of Kassin's articles was instrumental in overturning the convictions of five boys who had been falsely convicted of the rape of a jogger. At the University of Liverpool, David V. Canter is credited with the creation of the term investigative psychology, a sub-specialization of forensic psychology that pertains to of criminal behavior and the investigative process. Through the psychological profiling of the Railway Rapists, Canter assisted in the capture of the killers. The 20th-century psychologist William Stern, conducted numerous experiments on eyewitness testimony, credibility, consistency, and the influence of leading questions in court.
Recently, forensic psychology has grown in popularity in the media. For example, many recent docuseries on Netflix feature forensic psychological content, including Making a Murderer and Sins of our Mother. Other TV shows and movies such as Criminal Minds, Manhunter, Mindhunter, and Silence of The Lambs have widely popularized the practice of criminal profiling, particularly within the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU). One example of a highly-publicised case that used forensic psychology was Ted Bundy's sentencing. In 1980, he went to trial and was evaluated by multiple psychology professionals to determine his ability to stand before the court. The results from the multiple psychologist evaluations determined that Ted Bundy was fit to stand before the court.
Training and education
Forensic psychology involves both elements of basic as well as applied work. Forensic psychologists may hold a Ph.D. or Psy.D. in clinical psychology, counseling psychology, social psychology, organizational psychology, school psychology, or experimental psychology under accredited institutions. Additionally, 2 years of supervised experience in their field is necessary. There are no specific license requirements in the United States to be a forensic psychologist, although U.S. states, territories, and the District of Columbia require licensure for psychologists in the state they intend to practice. Certification specifically in forensic psychology is also available.
There are 65 forensic psychology degree programs offered in the US. Average tuition cost is $9,475 in-state and $25,856 out-of-state.
There is a wide range of pay for individuals in the forensic psychology field. In the United States, the median annual income of clinical-forensic psychologists is $125,000 - $149,999, and the pay can range from $50,000 (entry-level) a year to more than $350,000 a year.
As of 2022, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, has seen a 6% rise in psychologist and there has been 196,000 new jobs for psychologist.[5]
Training and education
Forensic psychology involves both elements of basic as well as applied work. Forensic psychologists may hold a Ph.D. or Psy.D. in clinical psychology, counseling psychology, social psychology, organizational psychology, school psychology, or experimental psychology under accredited institutions. Additionally, 2 years of supervised experience in their field is necessary. There are no specific license requirements in the United States to be a forensic psychologist, although U.S. states, territories, and the District of Columbia require licensure for psychologists in the state they intend to practice. Certification specifically in forensic psychology is also available.
There are 65 forensic psychology degree programs offered in the US. Average tuition cost is $9,475 in-state and $25,856 out-of-state.
There is a wide range of pay for individuals in the forensic psychology field. In the United States, the median annual income of clinical-forensic psychologists is $125,000 - $149,999, and the pay can range from $50,000 (entry-level) a year to more than $350,000 a year.
References
- "Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2024-02-04. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/509/579/
- "Daubert standard", Wikipedia, 2023-03-30, retrieved 2024-02-04 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daubert_standard&oldid=1147326967
- ^ "Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2024-02-04.
- ^ "Pyridoxine/doxylamine", Wikipedia, 2023-05-08, retrieved 2024-02-25
- ^ "Daubert standard", Wikipedia, 2023-03-30, retrieved 2024-02-04
- ^ Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., vol. 43, Argued and Submitted March 22, 1994, p. 1311, retrieved 2024-02-25
{{citation}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ "Psychologists : Occupational Outlook Handbook: : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics". www.bls.gov. Retrieved 2024-02-25.
Instructor Feedback:
This is a very interesting case to include, but I think a major factor of this case is that it is about expert witnesses with "scientific knowledge". I am not sure that was apparent from what is currently written. The statement about admissibility of evidence likely needs additional explanation. What kind of evidence more specifically? I also think there is some opportunity for improving the organization of this section. Would subheaders or a different organization help the readability and flow? What additional edits do you plan to add and how will you integrate peer-reviewed secondary literature (you need at least 2 citations that conform to this expectation)?
Suggested revision: The Daubert Standard is considered to be a part of the Federal Rules of Evidence and is used by the U.S. Supreme Court, whereas most state courts still reference the Frye standard around the admissibility of evidence.[1]