PSYCHOLOGY 790-3:



Psychology 790-3Proseminar in Law and PsychologyProfessor Ron RoeschFall 2017RCB 6326 (roesch@sfu.ca)Office Hours: By appointmentCourse DescriptionThis course will differ from prior offerings of Psyc 790. The Law and Forensic Psychology graduate program revised our course requirements. We dropped a couple of courses and added a new course, Psyc 791. Both Psyc 790 and 791 are now required courses for students in the Law and Forensic Psychology graduate program. Over the course of two semesters, Psyc 790 and 791 will address general issues in the interaction between the law and behavioral sciences, providing a broad coverage of topics in civil and criminal forensic psychology. Both courses will be team taught, with each of the faculty leading seminars over the course of the two semesters. I will be responsible overall for the course this semester, and will lead about half of the seminars. But as noted in the outline, Professors Deborah Connolly, Stephen Hart, and Jodi Viljoen will take responsibility for five of the seminars (Professor Kevin Douglas is on study leave this year but will contribute when Psyc 791 is offered in 18-3). I will be responsible for the grades for the course. Course ObjectivesTo introduce students to the broad area of legal psychology to give them an appreciation of the application of psychological principles and methods to the legal system. To provide students with an appreciation for the uses of psychology in contributing information about public policy. The course also will serve a foundation for later courses, research, and practical work in legal psychology.Required ReadingsThere is no required text. Weekly readings are provided in this outline and will be available in a Dropbox folder set up for this course.Evaluation Paper (35%). For the paper you will choose an area within legal psychology (from the reading topics from this syllabus or an area you select that is approved by me), and research the relevant legal and psychological considerations to discuss policy implications and the course future research should take to answer some of the questions raised by the law. The paper also will be used for your presentation (see below). Note: The paper is due by 4:00 pm on Friday, December 8, and can be submitted by email. Class presentation (25%). The presentation should be about 30 minutes in length, focusing on the topic you select for your paper.Thought papers (20%). The requirement is to write thought papers during the semester. Each thought paper is based on the readings for that week. The thought paper should be about 400-500 words in length (i.e., about one page, single spaced). You may give a personal reaction to the readings, critically evaluate them, or identify a question arising from them and attempt to answer it. We will use the thought papers as a vehicle for discussing the readings, so I set up a Dropbox folder so everyone can access the papers. To give us time to read them before class, please make sure the thought papers are distributed by 6 pm on the Sunday before each class. The thought papers will be worth 20% of your final course grade (you will receive an A for this portion if all thought papers are satisfactory).Participation (20%). Weekly Topics and Reading AssignmentsNote: * denotes suggested but not required readingSeptember 11: Introduction and Overview of Forensic Psychology; Ethics and Expert Testimony (Roesch)American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists. American Psychologist, 68, 7-19.?CIHR guidelines for health research involving aboriginal people. Read the Summary of Articles on pages 3-6 for now.*Haney, C. (2002). Making law modern: Toward a contextual model of justice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 3–63.Heilbrun, K., & Brooks, S. (2010).?Forensic psychology and forensic science: A proposed agenda for the next decade. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 219–253.R. v. Mohan, 2 S.C.R. (1994).Redding, R. E., Floyd, M. Y., & Hawk, G. L. (2001). What judges and lawyers think about the testimony of mental health experts: A survey of the courts and bar. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, 583-594.*Roesch, R., Golding, S. L., Hans, V. P., & Reppucci, N. D. (1991). Social science and the courts: The role of amicus curiae briefs. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 1-11.September 18: The Canadian Legal System (Connolly)Please prepare a response to the following question, "What is the most interesting thing you learned about the Canadian legal system and why is it interesting?”Roesch, R., Zapf, P. A., Hart, S. D., & Connolly, D. A. (2014). Forensic psychology and law: A Canadian perspective. Toronto, ON: Wiley. Chapter 2 on The Canadian Legal System: An Overview.*Connolly, D. A., & Coburn, P. I. (2016). Legal theory from confederation to today. In R. Jackson, & R. Roesch (Eds.), Learning Forensic Assessment: Research and Practice (2nd ed., pp. 37–44). New York: Routledge.September 25: Mental Health and Criminal Law (fitness to stand trial, criminal responsibility, jail mental health) (Roesch)*Bill C-14 (2014, April). An Act to Amend the Criminal Code and the National Defense Act (Mental Disorder) [Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act]. Available from: . *British Columbia Review Board Annual Report 2013-2014 (2014). Available from: report complete 2014.pdfCanadian Psychological Association Fitness to Stand Trial Task Force. Draft of report.Crocker, A. G., Seto, M. C., Nicholls, T. L., Cote, G., (2013). Description and processing of individuals found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder accused of “serious violent offences.” Final report submitted to the Research and Statistics Division, Justice Canada: Ottawa, Canada. *Gowensmith, W. N., Murrie, D. C., & Boccaccini, M. T. (2013). How reliable are forensic evaluations of legal sanity? Law and Human Behavior, 37, 98-106.*Latimer, J., & Lawrence, A. (2006). The review board systems in Canada: An overview of results from the mentally disordered accused data collection study. Read 1. Introduction through 4. Conclusion (pp. 1-39). Nicholls, T.L., Olley, M., Ogloff, J. R. P., Roesch, R., & Kreis, M. F. (in press). Jail Screening Assessment Tool (JSAT). In R. D. Morgan (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of criminal psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Packer, I. K. (2012). Evaluation of criminal responsibility. In R. Roesch & P. A. Zapf (Eds.), Forensic assessments in criminal and civil law: A handbook for lawyers (pp. 32-46). NY: Oxford University Press.Roesch, R., & McLachlan, K. (2008). The Fitness Interview Test-Revised. In B. Cutler (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology and law (pp. 322-324). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.*Viljoen, J.L., Roesch, R., Ogloff, J.R.P., & Zapf, P.A. (2003). The role of Canadian psychologists in conducting fitness and criminal responsibility evaluations. Canadian Psychology, 44, 369-381.Zapf, P. A., & Roesch, R. (2013). Evaluation of competence to stand trial. In R. Roesch & P. A. Zapf (Eds.), Forensic assessments in criminal and civil law: A handbook for lawyers (Read chapter 2, pp. 17-31). NY: Oxford University Press.Zapf, P. A., & Roesch, R. (2011). Future directions in the restoration of competence to stand trial. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 43-47.October 2, 2017 (Viljoen): Adolescent Development and Youth JusticeGrisso, T., & Steinberg, L. (2005). Between a rock and a soft place: Developmental research and the child advocacy process. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 619-627. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3404_4Shulman, E. P., & Steinberg, L. (2016). Human development and juvenile justice. In K. Heilbrun, D. DeMatteo, N. S. Goldstein, K. Heilbrun, D. DeMatteo, N. S. Goldstein (Eds.), APA handbook of psychology and juvenile justice (pp. 69-90). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/14643-004Sweeten, G., Piquero, A. R., & Steinberg, L. (2013). Age and the explanation of crime, revisited. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 921-938. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-9926-4Steinberg, L. (2017). Adolescent brain science and juvenile justice policymaking. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, doi:10.1037/law0000128October 9: ThanksgivingOctober 16: Juvenile Justice Part 2 (Viljoen): Youth Justice: Policies & PracticeCleary, H. (2017). Applying the lessons of developmental psychology to the study of juvenile interrogations: New directions for research, policy, and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23, 118-130.Letourneau, E. J., & Caldwell, M. F. (2013). Expensive, harmful policies that don't work or how juvenile sexual offending is addressed in the U.S. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation And Therapy, 8(3-4), 23-29. doi:10.1037/h0100979Viljoen, J. L., Gray, A. L., & Barone, C. (2016). Assessing risk for violence and offending in adolescents. In R. Jackson and R. Roesch (Eds.), Learning Forensic Assessment (2nd Ed., pp. 357 – 388) New York: Routledge.Vincent, G. M., Guy, L. S., Perrault, R. T., & Gershenson, B. (2016). Risk assessment matters, but only when implemented well: A multisite study in juvenile probation. Law and Human Behavior, 40(6), 683-696. doi:10.1037/lhb0000214.October 23: Forensic Assessment (Part 1) (Hart)Grisso, T. (2003). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments, 2nd ed. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Chapter 1: Advances in assessments for legal competenciesChapter 2: Legally relevant assessments for legal competenciesChapter 3: Empirical assessments for legal competenciesHeilbrun, K. (2001). Principles of forensic mental health assessment. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Chapter 1: Developing principles of forensic mental health assessmentSchopp, R. F. (2001). Competence, condemnation, and commitment: An integrated theory of mental health law. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Chapter 3: Legally significant mental illnessOctober 30: Forensic Assessment (Part 2) (Hart) *Batastini, A. B., McDonald, B. R., & Morgan, R. D. (2013). Videoteleconferencing in forensic and correctional practice. In K. Meyers & C. L. Turvey (Eds.), Telemental health: Clinical, technical, and administrative foundations for evidence-based practice (pp. 251-271). London: Elsevier. *Goodman‐Delahunty, J., & Dhami, M. K. (2013). A forensic examination of court reports. Australian Psychologist, 48, 32-40. *Heilbrun, K., DeMatteo, D., & Marczyk, G. (2004). Pragmatic psychology, forensic mental health assessment, and the case of Thomas Johnson: Applying principles to promote quality. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10, 31-70.Heilbrun, K., DeMatteo, D., Marczyk, G., & Goldstein, A. M. (2008). Standards of practice and care in forensic mental health assessment: Legal, professional, and principles-based consideration. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14, 1-26.*Heilbrun, K., Phillips, S., & Thornewill, A. (2016). Professional standards’ citations in law and the behavioral sciences: Implications for policy and practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 47, 287-294.Lander, T. D., & Heilbrun, K. (2009) The content and quality of forensic mental health assessment: Validation of a principles-based approach. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 8, 115-121.Neal, T., & Brodsky, S. L. (2016). Forensic psychologists’ perceptions of bias and potential correction strategies in forensic mental health evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22, 58-76.*Neal, T. M., & Grisso, T. (2014). Assessment practices and expert judgment methods in forensic psychology and psychiatry: An international snapshot. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 1406-1421.*Neal, T., & Grisso, T. (2014). The cognitive underpinnings of bias in forensic mental health evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 200-211.*Pirelli, G., Otto, R. K., & Estoup, A. (2016). Using internet and social media data as collateral sources of information in forensic evaluations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 47, 12-17. *Singh, J. P., Desmarais, S. L., Hurducas, C., Arbach-Lucioni, K., Condemarin, C., Dean, K., ... & Ho, R. M. Y. (2014). International perspectives on the practical application of violence risk assessment: A global survey of 44 countries. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 13, 193-206.Wettstein, R. M. (2005). Quality and quality improvement in forensic mental health evaluations. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 33, 158-175.*Young, G. (2016). Psychiatric/psychological forensic report writing. International journal of Law and Psychiatry, 49, 214-220.Zapf, P. A., & Dror, I. E. (in press). Understanding and mitigating bias in forensic evaluation: Lessons from forensic science. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health.November 6: Police Interrogations, Confessions, & Lie Detection (Roesch) Bull, R., & Milne, R. (2004). Attempts to improve police interviewing of suspects. In G.D. Lassiter (Ed.), Interrogations, confessions and entrapment. New York: Plenum.Smalarz, L., Scherr, K. C., & Kassin, S. M. (2016). Miranda at 50: A psychological analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 455–460.Kassin, S. M., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2004). The psychology of confessions: A review of the literature and issues. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 35–67.Fiedler, K., Schmid, J., & Stahl, T. (2002). What is the current truth about polygraph lie detection. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24, 313-324. R. v. Oickle, 2 S.C.R. 3 (2000). Excerpt.Roesch, R., Zapf, P. A., Hart, S. D., & Connolly, D. A. (2014). Forensic psychology and law: A Canadian perspective. Toronto, ON: Wiley. Chapter 9 on Police Investigations, Interrogations, and Confessions.November 13: Remembrance DayNovember 20: Correctional Psychology (Roesch)Andrews, D., & Bonta, J. (2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 39-55.Bierie & D. M., & Mann, R. E. (2017). The history and future of prison psychology. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23, 478-489. Cook, A. N., & Roesch, R. (2012). “Tough on crime” reforms: What psychology has to say about the recent and proposed justice policy in Canada. Canadian Psychology, 53, 217–225.Chaimowitz, G. (2012). The treatment of mental illness in correctional settings. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 57, 1.Roesch, R., Zapf, P. A., Hart, S. D., & Connolly, D. A. (2014). Forensic psychology and law: A Canadian perspective. Toronto, ON: Wiley. Chapter 12 on Correctional Psychology.Serin, R. (2005). Evidence-based practice: Principles for enhancing correctional results in prison. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Read Appendix ADrop if teach again. Stalans, L. J. (2009). Women's offending behavior: Evidence-based review of gender differences and gender responsive programs. Victims & Offenders, 4, 405-411.November 27, December 4: Student Presentations (Roesch)*denotes readings that are suggested, not required. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download