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.
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.
American Psychological Association (1974). Report of the task force on the role of psychology in the criminal justice system.American Psychologist, 33, 1099–1103.
Annas, G., Glantz, L. & Katz, V. (1977).The law of informed consent to human experimentation. Cambridge: Ballenger Publishing Co.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bersoff, D. (1977). Representation for children in custody proceedings: All that glitters is notgault.Journal of Family Law, 15, 27–49.
Brown v. Board of Educatio, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Cahn, E. (1955). Jurisprudence.New York University Law Review, 30, 150–169.
Cleary, E. (1972).McCormick's handbook of the law of evidence (2d ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing.
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.
Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976).
Cronbach, L. (1975). Five decades of public controversy over mental testing.American Psychologist, 30, 1–14.
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.
DeLeon, P., O'Keefe, A., Vandenbos, G., & Kraut, A. (1982). How to influence public policy: A blueprint for activism.American Psychologist, 37, 476–485.
Delgado, R., & McAllen, P. (1982). The moralist as expert witness.Boston University Law Review, 62, 869–926.
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.
Felner, R. & Farber, S. (1980). Social policy for child custody: A multidisciplinary framework.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 50, 341–347.
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).
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.
Grisso, T., Sales, B., & Bayless, S. (1982). Law-related courses in programs in graduate psychology programs.American Psychologist, 37, 267–278.
Henning, J. (Ed.) (1982).The rights of children: Legal and psychological perspectives Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas.
Houssiadas, L. & Brown, L. (1980). Egocentrism in language and space perception: An examination of the concept.Genetic Psychology Monographs, 101, 183–214.
Horowitz, J. & Katz, J. (1975).Social science and public policy in the United States. New York: Praeger.
Hutchins, R. (1927). The law and the psychologists.Yale Review, 16, 678–690.
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.
Kluger, R. (1976).Simple justice. New York: Knopf.
Koneĉni, V., & Ebbesen, E. (1979). External validity of research in legal psychology.Journal of Law and Human Behavior, 3, 39–70.
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.
Loftus, E. & Monahan, J. (1980). Trial by data: Psychological research as legal evidence.American Psychologist, 35, 270–283.
Loh, W. (1981). Psycholegal research: Past and present.Michigan Law Review, 79, 659–707.
McCloskey, M., & Egeth, H. (1983). Eyewitness identification: What can a psychologist tell a jury?American Psychologist, 38, 550–563.
McQeen, R. (1979). The psychologist to the witness stand.Clinical Psychologist, 32, 4–6.
Melton, G., Koocher, G. & Saks, M. (Eds.) (1983)Children's competence to consent. New York: Plenum.
Mnookin, R. (1975). Child custody and adjudication: Judicial functions in the face of indeterminancy.Law and Contemporary Problems, 39, 226–293.
Monahan, J., & Loftus, E. (1982). The psychology of law.Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 441–475.
Morse, S. (1982). Failed explanations and criminal responsibilities: Experts and the unconscious.Virginia Law Review, 68, 971–1084.
Munsterberg, H. (1908)On the witness stand: Essays on psychology and crime. New York: Doubleday.
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.
Saks, M. (1977).Jury trials Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Health.
Saks, M. (1978). Social psychological contributions to a legislative subcommittee on organ and tissue transplants.American Psychologist, 33, 690–690.
Schlegel, J. (1979). American legal realism and empirical social science. From the Yale experience.Buffalo Law Review, 28, 459–586.
Skolnick, A. (1975). The limits of childhood: Conceptions of child development and social context.Law and Contemporary Problems, 39, 38–77.
Stephan, W. (1978). School desegregation: An evaluation of predictions made inBrown v. Board of Education.Psychological Bulletin, 85, 217–238.
Tanke, E., & Tanke, T. (1979). Getting off a slippery slope: Social science in the judicial process.American Psychologist, 34, 1130–1138.
Tapp, J. (1976). Psychology and law: An overture.Annual Review of Psychology, 27, 359–404.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1978). A theory of procedure.California Law Review, 66, 541–566.
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.
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.
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.
Ziskin, J. (1981).Coping with psychiatric and psychological testimony (3d ed.). Beverly Hills, California: Law and Psychology Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
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
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044566