Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Psychologists and the judicial system

Broader perspectives

  • Articles
  • Published:
Law and Human Behavior

Abstract

This article traces the rise, fall, and current ambivalence in the use of social science data and psychological experts by the legal system. Several reasons are discussed for the less than perfect “marriage” between psychology and the law: normative philosophy of constitutional adjudication; overriding principles of the rules of evidence; irrelevancy to the courts of much of social science research; seduction of psychologists by attorneys who persuade experts to testify as advocates for a particular position rather than as objective scientists. These problems are placed in legal and ethical frame-work and suggestions for remediation of these problems are offered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ake v. Oklahoma, 105 S. Ct. 1087 (1985).

  • American Psychiatric Association. (1974).Clinical aspects of the violent individual: task force report No. 8. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association (1974). Report of the task force on the role of psychology in the criminal justice system.American Psychologist, 33, 1099–1103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Annas, G., Glantz, L. & Katz, V. (1977).The law of informed consent to human experimentation. Cambridge: Ballenger Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978).

  • Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979).

  • Bersoff, D. (1984). Social and legal influences on test development and usage. In B. Plake and S. Elliot (Eds.),Buros-Nebraska symposium on measurement and testing. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bersoff, D. (1983). Children as participants in psychoeducational assessment. In G. Melton, G. Koocher & M. Saks (Eds.),Children's competence to consent. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bersoff, D. (1982a). Children as research subjects: Problems of competency and consent. In J. Henning (Ed.),Rights of children: Legal and psychological perspectives. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bersoff, D. (1982b). Larry P. and PASE: Judicial report cards on the validity of individual intelligence tests. In T. Kratochwill (Ed.),Advances in school psychology, Vol. 2 Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bersoff, D. (1977). Representation for children in custody proceedings: All that glitters is notgault.Journal of Family Law, 15, 27–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown v. Board of Educatio, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

  • Cahn, E. (1955). Jurisprudence.New York University Law Review, 30, 150–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleary, E. (1972).McCormick's handbook of the law of evidence (2d ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colgrove v. Battin, 413 U.S. 149 (1973).

  • Gass, R. (1979). Comment. The psychologist as expert witness: Science in the courtroom?Maryland Law Review, 38, 539–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976).

  • Cronbach, L. (1975). Five decades of public controversy over mental testing.American Psychologist, 30, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crutchfield, R. & Krech, D. (1962). Some guides to the understanding of the history of psychology. In L. Postman (Ed.),Psychology in the making. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLeon, P., O'Keefe, A., Vandenbos, G., & Kraut, A. (1982). How to influence public policy: A blueprint for activism.American Psychologist, 37, 476–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delgado, R., & McAllen, P. (1982). The moralist as expert witness.Boston University Law Review, 62, 869–926.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 45 C.F.R. §§46.101–.122 (May 30, 1974)amended Department of Health and Human Services.Federal Register, 1981, 46, 8366–8392.

  • Deutscher, M. & Chein, I. (1948). The psychological effects of enforced segregation: A survey of social science opinion.Journal of Psychology, 26, 259–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felner, R. & Farber, S. (1980). Social policy for child custody: A multidisciplinary framework.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 50, 341–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Rules of Evidence for United States courts and magistrates. St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing, 1975.

  • Freud, S. (1959). Psycho-analysis and the ascertaining of truth in courts of law. In E. Jones (Ed.),Collected papers of Sigmund Freud, Vol. 2. New York: Basic Books, (originally published in 1906).

    Google Scholar 

  • Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).

  • Grisso, T. (1980). Juveniles'capacities to waiveMiranda rights: An empirical analysis.California Law Review, 68, 1134–1166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grisso, T., Sales, B., & Bayless, S. (1982). Law-related courses in programs in graduate psychology programs.American Psychologist, 37, 267–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henning, J. (Ed.) (1982).The rights of children: Legal and psychological perspectives Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houssiadas, L. & Brown, L. (1980). Egocentrism in language and space perception: An examination of the concept.Genetic Psychology Monographs, 101, 183–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, J. & Katz, J. (1975).Social science and public policy in the United States. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, R. (1927). The law and the psychologists.Yale Review, 16, 678–690.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977).

  • Jenkins, J. (1983). [Interview with Justice Blackmun, A candid talk with Justice Blackmun].,New York Times Magazine, February 20, pp. 21–29, 57–61, 66.

  • Karst, K. (1960). Legislative facts in constitutional litigation.Supreme Court Review, 75–112.

  • Katz, J. (1972).Experimentation with human beings. New York: Russel Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluger, R. (1976).Simple justice. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koneĉni, V., & Ebbesen, E. (1979). External validity of research in legal psychology.Journal of Law and Human Behavior, 3, 39–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larry P. v. Riles, 343 F.Supp. 1306 (N.D. Cal 1972 (order granting preliminary injunction)aff d 502 F.2d 963 (9th Cir. 1974); 495 F.Supp. 926 (N.D. Cal. 1979)appeal docketed No. 80-4027 (9th Cir., Jan. 17, 1980).

  • Loftus, E. (1983). Silence is not golden.American Psychologist, 38, 564–572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, E. & Monahan, J. (1980). Trial by data: Psychological research as legal evidence.American Psychologist, 35, 270–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loh, W. (1981). Psycholegal research: Past and present.Michigan Law Review, 79, 659–707.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, M., & Egeth, H. (1983). Eyewitness identification: What can a psychologist tell a jury?American Psychologist, 38, 550–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • McQeen, R. (1979). The psychologist to the witness stand.Clinical Psychologist, 32, 4–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melton, G., Koocher, G. & Saks, M. (Eds.) (1983)Children's competence to consent. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mnookin, R. (1975). Child custody and adjudication: Judicial functions in the face of indeterminancy.Law and Contemporary Problems, 39, 226–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monahan, J., & Loftus, E. (1982). The psychology of law.Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 441–475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, S. (1982). Failed explanations and criminal responsibilities: Experts and the unconscious.Virginia Law Review, 68, 971–1084.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munsterberg, H. (1908)On the witness stand: Essays on psychology and crime. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Note. Evolving methods of scientific proof.New York Law Forum, (1968)13, 677–775.

  • Parham v. J. L., 442 U.S. 584 (1979).

  • PASE v. Hannon, 506 F.Supp. 831 (N.D. Ill. 1980).

  • Perry, G., & Melton, G. (1984). Precedential value of judicial notice of social facts: Parham as an example.Journal of Family Life, 22, 633–676.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saks, M. (1977).Jury trials Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Health.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saks, M. (1978). Social psychological contributions to a legislative subcommittee on organ and tissue transplants.American Psychologist, 33, 690–690.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlegel, J. (1979). American legal realism and empirical social science. From the Yale experience.Buffalo Law Review, 28, 459–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skolnick, A. (1975). The limits of childhood: Conceptions of child development and social context.Law and Contemporary Problems, 39, 38–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, W. (1978). School desegregation: An evaluation of predictions made inBrown v. Board of Education.Psychological Bulletin, 85, 217–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanke, E., & Tanke, T. (1979). Getting off a slippery slope: Social science in the judicial process.American Psychologist, 34, 1130–1138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tapp, J. (1976). Psychology and law: An overture.Annual Review of Psychology, 27, 359–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1978). A theory of procedure.California Law Review, 66, 541–566.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v. Alexander, 526 F.2d 161 (8th Cir. 1975).

  • United States v. Amaral, 488 F.2d 1148 (9th Circ. 1973).

  • United States v. Brawner, 471 F.2d 969 (D.C. Cir. 1972) (en banc).

  • Van den Haag, E. (1960). Social science testimony in the desegregation cases: A reply to Professor Kenneth Clark.Villanova Law Review, 6, 69–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wigmore, J. (1909). Professor Münsterberg and the psychology of testimony: Being a report of the case of Cokestone v. Münsterburg.Illinois Law Review, 3, 399–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970).

  • Zeisel, H., & Diamond, S. (1974). “Convincing empirical evidence” on the six member jury.University of Chicago Law Review, 41, 281–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziskin, J. (1981).Coping with psychiatric and psychological testimony (3d ed.). Beverly Hills, California: Law and Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ennis, Friedman, Bersoff & Ewing, Washington, D.C.

    Donald N. Bersoff

Authors
  1. Donald N. Bersoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

About this article

Cite this article

Bersoff, D.N. Psychologists and the judicial system. Law Hum Behav 10, 151–165 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044566

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044566

Keywords

Search

Navigation