Forensic_Psychology_Module_9_Verity_Sant.pdf

Asian Journal of Criminology, 2007

Law & Contemp. Probs., 2008

The media's coverage of the Duke lacrosse story generated controversy from the very beginning. Early on, criticism came from those who felt that the media mistreated the accuser; later, critics wondered why coverage failed to direct more attention to the weakness of the prosecution's case. And throughout, critics suggested that the media mistreated the accused, rushing to judge them, abandoning the credo of innocent until proven guilty. What happened to these young men was indubitably a travesty of justice, and there are important lessons to be drawn regarding how standard media routines and practices can undermine the presumption of innocence. However, these lessons do not support critiques that trace media derelictions to "liberal bias" or "political correctness." 1 Nor should coverage as a whole be characterized as consistently slanted against the defendants. Just as it was unfair to jump to the conclusion that the prosecutor's emphatic insistence on the defendants' guilt

Criminal Minds can leave one with the impression that Criminal Profiling (CP)-the task of inferring demographic and personality details of an offender from his or her crime scene actions-is a well-practiced and reliable investigative technique. Over the past three decades, CP has gained tremendous popularity as a media topic, an academic area of study, and a tool for police investigations worldwide. However, as we demonstrate in this article, the acceptance of CP by many police officers, profilers, and the public is at odds with the absence of scientific evidence to confirm its reliability or validity. We think this confusion has arisen for two related reasons. The first is that people have developed a biased picture of CP because they typically hear only about its glowing successes. The second, related, reason relates to what we know about cognition and the manner by which people process information , which typically serves to support the credibility of CP.

Starting in the mid-1990s-for the first time since the Furman era-public approval of the death penalty took a dramatic dive. Baumgartner argues that this wave of opposition was brought about by the "innocence frame," a novel media frame bringing public awareness to the possibility that innocent people may be, and likely have been, executed for crimes that they did not commit. I expand upon Baumgartner's macro-level approach to the innocence frame, focusing instead on the inner workings of the innocence frame and the implications thereof. Specifically, I identify and investigate one of the innocence frame's two sub-frames-"actual innocence" and "fallibility"-which dictate the extent to which the innocence frame moves public opinion of the death penalty. Having narrowed the scope of my analysis from the innocence frame to actual innocence, I conducted an experiment seeking to identify factors that might assertively establish (or, alternatively, cast into doubt) the innocence of those who were wrongfully convicted and exonerated. I then observe how these factors affect evaluations of exoneree innocence and, in turn, how these evaluations affect attitudes toward the death penalty-thus demonstrating an "actual innocence" framing effect. Finally, I conduct a content analysis in order to assess how the media utilizes the actual innocence frame over time. Results indicate that the presence of DNA evidence in media coverage of exonerations affects evaluations of exoneree innocence, though the extent to which these evaluations shape attitudes toward the death penalty remains uncertain. Results also indicate that the media does utilize the actual innocence frameespecially during periods of time slightly preceding or coinciding with periods of skepticism regarding capital punishment. Together, the data shed light on the problematic nature of "innocence" in America, warranting further examination of the actual innocence frame and, moreover, our fundamental assumptions about modern criminal justice.

Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 2008

The Forensic Psychologist’s Casebook explores the complexities surrounding offender profiling and police investigations. The book contains 16 chapters divided into two parts, with Chapters 1–8 dealing with the context of criminal investigations and Chapters 9–16 providing practical advice to investigators. The editor, Laurence Alison, identifies several purposes of this casebook, including: (1) to expose current misconceptions surrounding offender profiling, (2) to develop a reference for practitioners and researchers in the field, and (3) to encourage a more systematic approach to police investigations. Overall, Alison envisions that this book will be accessible to the forensic community as a whole – including practitioners, researchers, investigators, and students.The first chapter, written by the editor, is effective in setting the scene for the entire book. While it is not an introductory chapter, it manages to clearly explain key concepts and assumptions of profiling. For instance

2004

I. INTRODUCTION Now that there is a book of academic writing available about the Simpsons (The D'oh of Homer'), perhaps a reference to a scene from that show might have the proper academic cachet. When Sideshow Bob is caught redhanded attempting to kill his brother, Police Chief Wiggams wheels the gumey up to Bob and prepares to strap him in. Bob asks, "Isn't it customary to have a trial first?" and Wiggams replies, "Oh, a wise guy, eh?" As we read media accounts of the jurisdictional jockeying over who would get to impose a death sentence on accused D.C. area snipers John Mohammad and Lee Malvo before they were brought to trial, or about the Illinois clemency hearings in which the cries for execution drowned out discussion of serious flaws with the administration of the death penalty, we might ask whether Chief Wiggams' attitude toward procedural protections is confined to the cartoons. Substantial work has been done on media's coverage of crime, in particular its insistent focus on violent crime. Very little work has been done specifically on media's relationship to the death penalty. Although much of what has been said about media and crime is highly relevant to this topic, the death penalty presents its own complex set of challenges for the media, and these are the focus of this piece. Law and media exist in a complex feedback loop. Television, with some help from other media, has become our culture's principal storyteller, educator, and shaper of the popular imagination. 2 It not only transmits legal norms, but also has a role in creating them. We are constantly constructing and interpreting our notions of law and justice based on what we know, or what we think we know. Relatively few people have direct experience with the criminal justice system, and so much of what we know, or think we know, comes from media coverage. We should focus on media's limitations, their potential, and their particular grammar and logic, because these have important implications for our ability to articulate, construct, and even deliver justice. What is meant by "media?" The word is plural, and in one regard, it is important to treat it as such-focusing on the particular characteristics of each individual medium. Television, the omnipresent medium, has a particular Distinguished Research Professor of Law, DePaul University. I wish to thank Bill Bowers, Jim Liebman, Andrea Lyon and Michelle Oberman for their comments on an earlier draft. 1 THE SIMPSONS AND PHILOSOPHY: THE D'OH! OF HOMER (William Irwin et al. eds., 2001).

The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, 2012

Crime Law and Social Change, 2004

Criminal Justice Matters, 2011