College aantekeningen
3.3 Elective legal psychology
- Vak
- Legal psychology
- Instelling
- Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam (EUR)
English notes for elective 3.3 legal psychology. It includes a summary of relevant chapters and lectures.
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 38 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 38 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
❋LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY❋● Legal psychology: the study of thought processes and behaviors of jurors,
the court system, legal processes
○ Examine how jurors are chosen, how juries make decisions, and the
credibility of eyewitness testimonies
○ Judges are not bound by scientific evidence
● Forensic psychology: focuses on criminal cases (suspects, defendants, and
convicted criminal) and the psychological issues involved in them
○ Evaluating clients (i.e. criminals, felons, and defendants) to determine if
they are legally sane or criminally insane
WEEK 1
LECTURE: introduction
DUTCH CASE: Schiedam park murder case
THE “FACTS”
● 22 June 2000, Kees B. (31 years) calls the police
● Nude boy Maikel W. (11 years) at the crime scene
● Dead girl Nienke Kleiss (10 years) in the bushes
WITNESSES
● Kees B.: nude boy coming out of the bushes, so calls police
● Taxi driver: waking down the park and suddenly saw a nude boy coming out
of the bushes with his shoes hanging from his neck
● Maikel: Nienke was my friend and were playing in the play yard, went to see
their bikes to go home
○ A man with a knife grabbed them by the neck and were brought to the
bushes
○ Forced them to undress and tries to strangulate him
○ He was stabbed with the knife so he played dead (totstell response)
○ Attacker leaves Maikel and starts attacking Nienke
○ Perpetrator comes back to Maikel and punches him
○ Tied his shoelaces together and tries to strangulate him
○ Description of perpetrator: 25 years, 1.80 m, blue jeans and leather
jacket, dark blond short hair, caucasian and pale, many pimples and
swollen face, no glasses moustache or beard, had an earring
- 4 weeks later -
KEES BECOMES A SUSPECT
● 30 May 1999 (one year before the crime) in the same park, boy Patrick was
playing and is approached by Kees
○ He makes him a proposal for sexual interaction in return of money
○ Patrick says no and he goes away
, ● 12 July 2000, Patrick is in the park and recognizes Kees
○ He was with his father who was a policeman
○ The father asks Kees’ name and the next day finds out that he phoned
the police one month before for a crime in the park
○ He also knows that he has pedosexual interests and approaches
children like his son
● Interrogations
○ Multiple times for long time periods
○ Initial denial that he has anything to do with the murder
■ He left work at 17:40 and called the police at 18:08
● Confession
○ September 9: I went into the bushes and saw two dead children
○ September 10: Kees testifies that he wen into the bushes, saw the
children play doctor, killed the girl and strangled the boy with his won
shoe laces
● Evidence (used by the court)
○ Several bystanders saw the perpetrator the next day returning to the
scene of the crime (maybe to clean crime scene)
○ Pedosexual
○ Confessed (but later retracted)
○ His bike was seen in proximity of the crime scene
○ His mom thought Kees acted weirdly on the pertinent day
● Anomalies (negative evidence)
○ Maikel does not seem to recognize Kees
○ No DNA of Kees is found
○ If Maikel’s timeline is correct, Kees cannot have been in time to commit
the crime
● Verdict
○ 29 May 2001, Court Rotterdam: 18 year imprisonment + TBS
(psychiatric treatment)
○ 8 March 2002, Court of Appeal Den Haag: confirmation
○ 15 April 2003, Supreme court: confirmation
CRITICAL COMMENTS by Peter van Koppen
● Comment 1: differences between what Kees and Maikel says
○ Maikel: they were attacked from behind and taken to the bushes,
perpetrator wore a baseball cap, strangulated twice, stabbed in the
neck (according to doctor 8 times)
○ Kees: went to the bushes alone and found the children there, they were
playing doctor, he does not have a baseball cap, he only strangulated
him with the shoelace, does not mention the knife at all
○ Kees was not the perpetrator but ended up confessing because he was
intensively interrogated and was tired (alteration of suspect judgement)
, ○ Imagination approach: imagine someone committed this crime, how
do you think they would do it?
○ No written reports of the interrogations made by the police but rather a
summary of what he said
● Comment 2: timeline
○ 17:15 Maikel and Nienke approach old man to ask time
○ 17:20 Maikel and Nienke are attacked from behind
○ 17:20 Kees B. leaves from work (10 min away)
○ 17:30 Two witnesses see a bike on the lawn, third witness sees both
children
○ 17:39 Witness hears a loud scream from Nienke
● Comment 3: identification evidence
○ Witnesses saw Kees or his bicycle the day of the crime or the day after
○ 23 June 2000, two witnesses saw a bike at the crime scene
○ 28 June 2000, 3 photos of Kees B. and 1 of his bike
■ One is not confident (the chain looks different)
■ One does not recognize the bike
■ The third (5 December) recognizes the bike by its color (but
black and white picture)
○ 5 September 2000, show up simulating petting a dog
○ Maikel does not recognize Kees, but can describe the perpetrator
○ Tunnel vision / attentional narrowing: does not recognize Kees as
the perpetrator because during the incidence he dissociated by
focusing on something else
● Comment 4: experts
○ Horizontal dissociation
○ Totstell reflex
○ Tunnelvision
○ Ruud Bullens: psychiatrist but had combination of irreconcilable roles
■ Safeguarding Maikels well-being during interviews but also
helping interrogators pressure Maikel (see if he could be a
suspect)
■ Assessing the credibility of Maikels’ testimony
■ Producing a personality profile of Maikel
○ Forensic psychology (PBC): assess criminal responsibility of the
suspect
■ Kees has passive-aggressive and antisocial disorder
■ He denied the crime (but psychologists assume he is guilty to
give proper advice to the judge)
■ Kees’ sexual preferences (he likes boys)
● Comment 5: DNA
○ No DNA from Kees B. in crime scene
○ Non-matching DNA under Nienke’s finger nails and on her boots, but
from an unknown third person
, ○ DNA found in Nienke’s body matches one found in CS-C
● Comment 6: flawed investigation
○ Incomplete file
○ One-sided, suspect-guided approach, tunnel vision, confirmation bias
○ The police, prosecution and judge did not establish Kees’ guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, but merely checked whether the evidence was not at
odds with him being the perpetrator
ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS
● What if Kees is innocent?
○ The man at CS-C
○ Witness 1, the taxi driver
○ Maikel
● 2-3 years later: prosecution starts new investigation
○ Looking for another suspect
○ New information points in the direction of another man that was already
in jail and confessed rather than Kees (which was convicted for muder)
WEEK 2
LECTURE: eyewitness identification evidence
● How can the identity of the perpetrator be established from eyewitness
testimony? How are and should identification procedures be carried out? And
how reliable are eyewitness identifications?
● Chapter 4: identification evidence
STARTING POINTS
● What do the police want right now?
○ Find a suspect
○ Find evidence against the suspect
● What is the relation between the witness and the perpetrator?
● How much effort, time, and money are the police willing to invest?
PRIORITY: find suspect
● Purpose of identification: apprehend a suspect
● Employing a mugshot series is preferable (given that the witness does not
know the perpetrator) of people that have commited a similar crime in the past
● Mugshot series: pictures of people when they are arrested
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper dabad23. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €9,99. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 52928 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen