Matching Items (3)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Law
Description
Courthouse dogs (sometimes referred to as facility animals) are expertly trained canines which may be used to assist individuals with psychological, emotional, or physical difficulties in a myriad of courtroom situations. While these animals are increasingly used to assist young witness to court, the jury is still out on whether or not they are prejudicial to the defendant. No known research exists in this area, although research is necessary to determine the possibly prejudicial nature of these animals. Using a mock trial paradigm involving a child sexual abuse case, the current study employed a 2 (Witness type: victim vs. bystander) x 3 (Innovation type: courthouse dog vs. teddy bear vs. none) fully-crossed factorial design. It was hypothesized that witness type and innovation type would interact to differentially impact jurors' judgments about the trial, defendant, and child witness. In addition, it was posited that emotions, such as anger and disgust, would also affect judgments and decision-making. Results indicate that courthouse dogs and comfort toys did impact jurors' decision making in some ways. In addition, emotions and witness credibility predicted sentencing, verdict, and other trial judgments.
ContributorsBurd, Kayla (Author) / Mcquiston, Dawn E (Thesis advisor) / Salerno, Jessica M (Committee member) / Schweitzer, Nicholas J (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
Very little experimental work has been done to investigate the psychological underpinnings of perceptions of privacy. This issue is especially pressing with the advent of powerful and inexpensive technologies that allow access to all but our most private thoughts -and these too are at risk (Farah, Smith, Gawuga, Lindsell, &Foster;, 2009). Recently the Supreme Court ruled that the use of a global positioning system (GPS) device to covertly follow a criminal suspect, without first obtaining a search warrant, is a violation of a suspect's fourth amendment right to protection from unlawful search and seizure (United States v. Jones, 2012). However, the Court has also ruled in the past that a law enforcement officer can covertly follow a suspect's vehicle and collect the same information without a search warrant and this is not considered a violation of the suspect's rights (Katz v. United States). In the case of GPS surveillance the Supreme Court Justices did not agree on whether the GPS device constituted a trespassing violation because it was placed on the suspect's vehicle (the majority) or if it violated a person's reasonable expectation of privacy. This incongruence is an example of how the absence of a clear and predictable model of privacy makes it difficult for even the country's highest moral authority to articulate when and why privacy has been violated. This research investigated whether public perceptions of support for the use of each surveillance technique also vary across different monitoring types that collect the same information and whether these differences are mediated by similar factors as argued by the Supreme Court. Results suggest that under some circumstances participants do demonstrate differential support and this is mediated by a general privacy concern. However, under other circumstances differential support is the result of an interaction between the type of monitoring and its cost to employ -not simply type; this differential support was mediated by both perceived violations of private-space and general privacy. Results are discussed in terms of how these findings might contribute to understanding the psychological foundation of perceived privacy violations and how they might inform policy decision.
ContributorsBaker, Denise, M.S (Author) / Schweitzer, Nicholas J (Thesis advisor) / Newman, Matt (Committee member) / Risko, Evan (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012
Description
The legal system relies heavily on the contribution of forensic psychologists. These psychologists give opinions on a defendant’s ability to stand trial, their legal sanity at the time of the crime, their future dangerousness, and their competency to be executed. However, we know little about what extrinsic factors bias these experts. I assessed the influence of gruesome photographs on forensic psychologists’ evaluations of competency and legal sanity. Previous research has demonstrated that these photographs influence lay judgments of guilt. I predicted that gruesome color photographs (versus the same photographs in black-and-white or a textual description of the photographs) would influence forensic psychologists to judge the defendant competent and sane (decisions that might ultimately lead to punishment). I also predicted that this effect would be greater for sanity judgments than for competency judgments. I asked laypeople to make the same decisions in order to compare expert and lay judgments. I predicted that impact of photograph type seen in experts would be greater in the lay sample. No differences in judgments of competence, sanity, or mental illness emerged as a function of the type of visual information, for either expert or lay participants. Experts relied on competency evidence to make competency judgments and insanity evidence to make insanity judgments. In contrast, lay people relied on various types of evidence to make their ultimate judgments. This research suggests that people making competency and sanity judgments might not be biased by gruesome photographs.
ContributorsPhalen, Hannah (Author) / Salerno, Jessica M (Thesis advisor) / Saks, Michael J. (Committee member) / Schweitzer, Nicholas J (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018