Forensic Psychology in Historical Perspective

Author(s):  
Heather Wolffram

Forensic psychology in the 21st century entails the application of psychology to all aspects of the criminal justice process. Forensic psychologists, therefore, are engaged in the theorization of offending, offender profiling, the psychology of testimony, investigative interviewing, the psychology of juries and judges, and psychological approaches to the punishment and treatment of offenders. Historically, however, forensic psychology, has been narrower in scope. Founded principally in Europe during the late 19th century as a response to the reform of criminal procedure and research on suggestion, which undermined confidence in witness credibility, forensic psychology was initially pursued by jurists and psychiatrists eager to understand the behavior of all those involved in the criminal justice process. While this ambition was pursued piecemeal by jurists throughout the early 20th century in their studies of guilty knowledge, judges, jurors, and investigators, the exigencies of the courtroom, soon saw the field become focused on the psychology of the witness, particularly the juvenile witness. Important, in this regard were the efforts of both European and American experimental psychologists, whose precarious position within universities at the fin de siècle saw them look for real-world applications for psychology and led them to campaign voraciously for the inclusion of psychological knowledge and psychological expertise in legal proceedings. Competition between several disciplines, including law, psychology, psychiatry, and pedagogy, over the role of psychological expert made the professionalization of this field difficult up until the Second World War. During the late 1940s and 1950s, however, not only did forensic psychology increasingly become the exclusive purview of psychologists, but the discipline’s scope began to expand. Notable in this regard was offender profiling, which emerged from the psychological analysis of war criminals and the application of the insights gained here to several high-profile criminal cases in the United States.

2021 ◽  
pp. 518-598
Author(s):  
Lucy Welsh ◽  
Layla Skinns ◽  
Andrew Sanders

In this chapter, we identify and critically evaluate the kind of things that can go wrong in the criminal justice process and describe the institutional architecture used to regulate the actions and effects of criminal justice practitioners and to hold them to account. The focus of the chapter is on the organisational, legal and democratic regulatory and accountability mechanisms associated with the police, courts and CPS. Specifically the chapter covers: Police and Crime Commissioners; citizen- and volunteer-led forms of accountability/regulation; royal commissions, public inquiries and independent inquiries; police complaints processes and inspectorates; trial remedies and appeals; the Criminal Cases Review Commission; civil proceedings; inquests and Coronial Courts.


Author(s):  
Tatyana Ryabinina

The article deals with current and controversial issue in the criminal science, specifically the need for the Russian criminal justice process to have an institute to return a criminal case to the procurator at the stage of appointment and preparation of the court hearing. The author emphasizes that during the continuance of RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure, a special emphasis was put on it as a guarantee of the delivery of justice and the rights of the participants in the proceedings, that put in place the arrangements necessary for an effective court trial. The goal of modern judicial reform is to establish an independent judiciary whose main function is the delivery of justice which can be implemented in criminal proceedings only in adversary criminal proceedings. Since the beginning of its implementation, attitudes towards the institution of returning a criminal case by a court to a procurator to correct lacunae, loopholes, contradictions, irregularities or flaws in pre-trial proceedings have changed dramatically. It is perceived as an attribute of the courts prosecutorial activities, which is inconsistent with its new role as an independent body to resolve legal disputes between a state and an individual awaiting for a founded and equitable decision from the court. Despite critical rhetoric towards the institution of returning the criminal case to the prosecutor, the author argues that it is necessary due to specific status of the first judicial phase in a staged system of Russian criminal justice process. This institute creates conditions for monitoring and verification activities of judges at this stage, and the corresponding authority of judges to determine the future course of criminal cases brought before the courts. However, the author concludes that the task of rectifying the shortcomings of the prosecution can be addressed at the preliminary hearing introduced by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation to resolve various contentious issues. When it is impossible to remove the obstacles that prevent the court from conducting a trial, the judge may, taking into account the views of the parties, decide to return the case to the prosecutor.


2015 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 503
Author(s):  
Shinta Agustina

This study aims to assess and analyze the application of the principle of lex specialis the derogat legi generali in the Criminal Justice System related to the stages in the criminal justice process, and the form of the indictment in applying the principle of lex specialis the derogat legi generali. The method used is empirical juridical with descriptive analytical. The result shows that this principle is applied in criminal cases that violating the general and special criminal provisions in the Penal Code, the general criminal provisions in the Penal Code and special criminal provisions outside the Penal Code, as well as criminal cases that violating two special criminal acts outside the Penal Code. Regarding the fase of criminal procedure in handling the case under this principle, it is implemented in the adjudication process, using the subsidiarity or cumulative model of chargingPenelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengkaji dan menganalisis penerapan asas lex specialis derogat legi generali dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana terkait dengan tahapan dalam proses peradilan pidana, dan bentuk surat dakwaan dalam menerapkan asas lex xpecialis derogat legi generali tersebut. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode  yuridis empiris yang bersifat deskriptif analitis. Hasil penelitian memperlihatkan bahwa asas lex specialis derogat legi generali diterapkan dalam perkara pidana yang mempertemukan ketentuan pidana umum dan khusus dalam KUHP, ketentuan pidana umum dalam KUHP dan ketentuan pidana khusus di luar KUHP, serta perkara pidana yang mempertemukan dua atau lebih ketentuan pidana khusus di luar KUHP. Berkenaan dengan tahapan dalam sistem peradilan pidana, asas ini diterapkan dalam tahap adjudication, yang mengharuskan surat dakwaan dibuat dalam model subsidiaritas atau kumulatif


1990 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 521-536 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael G. Maxfield ◽  
Terry L. Baumer

Since its introduction, electronically monitored home detention has become a common disposition throughout the United States. At the present time individuals at virtually every point in the criminal justice process are being monitored. This article describes studies of two populations. Preliminary results are presented from an evaluation of a pretrial home detention program. Salient differences are noted between the pretrial program and a similar program for convicted offenders delivered by the same agency, in the same jurisdiction. It is concluded that the nature of the client population significantly affects the design, delivery, and impact of electronically monitored home detention programs.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-106
Author(s):  
Pangestika Rizki Utami

The concept of diversity and restorative Justice is a criminal cases settlement form that provide children protection by promoting the best interest of the child principle. To protect children from the formal process of criminal justice system, the legal and humanitarian experts conceptualize the act of removing child who has allegedly committed a criminal offense from the general criminal justice process by providing an alternative punishment that is considered better for children. The concept of diversion is created based on the fact that the criminal justice process for children as the perpetrators through the conventional criminal justice system causes more harm than good. Restorative Justice is a fair resolving criminal cases system with by emphasizing recovery in its original state. This article will discuss about the shifting of children criminal responsibility from conservative criminal penalties to child friendly criminal penalties with the concept of diversity and restorative justice.


Author(s):  
Alec C. Ewald

Collateral sanctions are legal restrictions on the rights and privileges of people who have experienced contact with the criminal justice system, particularly contact resulting in conviction. Usually placed in civil and regulatory codes, collateral sanctions may limit a person’s ability to vote, live in public housing, own a firearm, qualify for an occupational license, serve in the military, receive public benefits, sit on a jury, or borrow money for college, among other activities. Yet, because they are usually defined as “indirect” consequences of a conviction, they may never surface in the criminal justice process, and they frequently extend far beyond the sentence. Such restrictions can deeply compromise the civic status and life chances of Americans with conviction records. But they are far from uniform: some serious restrictions are triggered by criminal justice involvement well short of a conviction, while others mark only some classes of offenders or operate only in some states. Layered into the federal system, multiplying the complications of criminal law and regulatory law, and imposed by civil servants with wide leeway in their interpretation of rules, American collateral sanctions are varied and complex. Their reach and severity in the United States appear to be unique in the democratic world and mark an important respect in which the American carceral state extends beyond mass incarceration.


Criminology ◽  
2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Forst

Prosecution and courts are at the heart and center of our criminal justice system. They serve as stages of case processing that follow the police arrest and precede the delivery of convicted defendants to correctional authorities. The prosecutor, usually a politically elected official, is the chief law enforcement officer in a jurisdiction (county, state, federal) yet carries out an administrative function within the executive branch of government. To put the prosecutor and court in perspective, it is useful to think about the two million or so felony arrests made in the United States annually. About a million end in conviction and sentencing each year. What happens between arrest and sentencing is driven by the prosecutor and court adjudication system. Yet remarkably little scholarly attention is paid to prosecution and adjudication, relative to the stages before (offending and policing) and after (corrections and subsequent offender behaviors). The information that follows aims to help interested people to learn about prosecution and adjudication and the forces that shape practices in these two critical and largely hidden-from-view stages of the criminal justice process.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document