Course Control Number (Non-1Ls): 49489
Office hours: Right after class, or
This
course will examine the implications of psychological theory and research for
normative legal theory and for contemporary legal policies, procedures, and
practices. The course will draw on contemporary cognitive, social, and clinical
psychology to address the concepts of intent, responsibility, deterrence, retribution,
morality, and procedural and distributive justice. We will examine evidence law
(e.g. eyewitness testimony, polygraphy, expert testimony, psychiatric diagnosis
and prediction), procedure (e.g., trial conduct, jury selection, settlement
negotiations, alternative dispute resolution), and various topics in criminal
law, tort law, family law, and other areas. We will compare "rational
actor" and psychological perspectives on decision making by juries,
judges, attorneys, and litigants. 4
Units
A
note about this syllabus: If you are
reading a hard copy of this syllabus, please note that the most current version
in on line at http://conium.org/~maccoun/lawpsych_fall2010.html. The readings and dates may be revised during
the term; any revisions will be announced in class and immediately posted to
the web page. Also, I will try to keep
the links working, but if a link to a reading does not work, then (a) email me
to tell me, but also (b) search for another copy of the reading on the web
(that's where I found them all!) (Hints: Use Google Scholar, and use a campus
internet address so you can take advantage of the university site licenses.)
We
have 26 separate 75-minute sessions.
Each session will have one required reading (or two very short pieces),
and one recommended reading. As the name
implies, I expect you to have read the required readings and to come to class
prepared to discuss them. The recommended readings are chosen to provide
further background, and I hope you will find them interesting and useful.
SCHEDULE (***Revised***)
|
Tue Aug 17 |
Legal
vs. social science standards of evidence |
|
Thu Aug 19 |
Eyewitness
accuracy and lineups |
|
Tue Aug 24 |
What
makes witnesses persuasive? |
|
Thu Aug 26 |
Clinical
vs. statistical reasoning |
|
Tue Aug 31 |
Forensic
evidence and expert testimony |
|
Thu Sep 2 |
Jury
selection |
|
Tue Sep 7 |
Are
jurors "meter readers" or "story tellers"? |
|
Thu Sep 9 |
Inadmissible
evidence, prejudice, and other extralegal biases |
|
Tue Sep 14 |
Jury
deliberation |
|
Thu Sep 16 |
The
psychology of the bench: Judges vs. juries |
|
Tue Sep 21 |
LAW SCHOOL BREAK |
|
Thu Sep 22 |
LAW SCHOOL BREAK |
|
Tue Sep 28 |
Moral
reasoning: Rationalist view |
|
Thu Sep 30 |
Moral
reasoning: Intuitionist view |
|
Tue Oct 5 |
Legal
vs. scientific views of causation and responsibility |
|
Thu Oct 7 |
Lay
notions of responsibility |
|
Tue Oct 12 |
Psychiatric
diagnosis and mental illness |
|
Thu Oct 14 |
Children
and adolescents |
|
Tue Oct 19 |
How
do people judge the fairness of procedures? |
|
Thu Oct 21 |
How
do people judge the fairness of outcomes? |
|
Tue Oct 26 |
Compensatory
and punitive damages |
|
Thu Oct 28 |
Anger,
catharsis, and the desire for retribution |
|
Tue Nov 2 |
Death
qualification in capital trials |
|
Thu Nov 4 |
Cognition,
emotion, and risk regulation |
|
Tue Nov 9 |
Deterrence |
|
Thu Nov 11 |
VETERAN'S DAY |
|
Tue Nov 16 |
Does
money buy happiness? How punishing is
punishment? |
|
Thu Nov 18 |
Paternalism,
psychology, and law |
|
Tue Nov 23 |
Does
neuroscience have radical implications for law? |
|
Thu Nov 25 |
THANKSGIVING |
|
Tue Nov 30 |
Discussion
of your paper topics |
Legal vs. social
science standards of evidence
REQUIRED: Faigman, D. L., & Monahan, J. (2005). Psychological evidence at the dawn of the law’s scientific age. Annual
Review of Psychology, 56, 631-659. http://conium.org/~maccoun/LP_FaigmanMonahan2005.pdf
RECOMMEND:
MacCoun, R. J. (1998). Biases in the interpretation and use of research results. Annual Review of
Psychology, 49, 259-287. http://conium.org/~maccoun/MacCoun_AnnualReview98.pdf
Eyewitness accuracy and
lineups
REQUIRED: Wells, G. L., et al. (2000). From the lab
to the police station: A successful application of eyewitness research. American
Psychologist, 55, 581-598. http://conium.org/~maccoun/LP_Wells2000.pdf
What makes witnesses
persuasive?
REQUIRED:
Spellman, B. A., & Tenney, E. R. (2010). Credible testimony in and out of
court. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 17, 168-173. http://pbr.psychonomic-journals.org/content/17/2/168.full.pdf+html
RECOMMENDED:
Tenney, E. R., Spellman, B. A., & MacCoun, R. J. (2008). The benefits
of knowing what you know (and what you don’t): Fact-finders rely on others who
are well calibrated. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. http://conium.org/~maccoun/TenneySpellmanMacCoun_JESP_inpress.pdf
Clinical vs.
statistical judgment
REQUIRED: Dawes, R.M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E.
(1989). Clinical versus actuarial
judgment. Science, 243,
1668-1674. http://conium.org/~maccoun/LP_DawesFaustMeehl1989.pdf
RECOMMENDED: MacCoun, R. J. (1998). Biases in the interpretation and use of research results. Annu. Rev. Psychol, 49: 259-287. http://conium.org/~maccoun/MacCoun_AnnualReview98.pdf
Forensic evidence and
expert testimony
REQUIRED: Hans, V. P. (2007-2008). Judges, juries, and scientific evidence. 16 J.L. &
Pol'y 19 (2007-2008). http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/jlawp16&div=6&g_sent=1&collection=journals
RECOMMENDED:
Diamond, S. S. (2007-2008). How jurors deal with expert testimony and how
judges can help, 16 J.L. & Pol'y 47-68. http://conium.org/~maccoun/LP_Diamond_jurors
expert testimony.pdf
Jury selection
REQUIRED:
Diamond, S. S. (1990). Scientific jury selection: What social
scientists do and do not know. Judicature, 73, 178-183. http://www.law.northwestern.edu/faculty/fulltime/diamond/papers/scientificJurySelection.pdf
RECOMMENDED: Hastie, R. (1991). Is
attorney-conducted voir dire an effective procedure for the selection of
impartial juries? 40
Am. Univ. L. Rev. 703. http://conium.org/~maccoun/LP_Hastie.htm
RECOMMENDED: Seltzer, R. (2006). Scientific jury selection: Does it work? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 2417-2435. http://faculty.fortlewis.edu/burke_b/Forensic/Class%20Readings/ScientificJurySelection.pdf
Are jurors meter readers or story tellers?
REQUIRED: Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence: Tests of the story model for juror
decision making. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 189-206.
http://conium.org/~maccoun/LP_PenningtonHastie1992.pdf
RECOMMENDED: MacCoun, R. J. (1989). Experimental research on jury
decision making. Science, 244, 1046-1050. http://conium.org/~maccoun/MacCoun_Science_1989.pdf
Inadmissible evidence,
prejudice, and other extralegal biases
REQUIRED: Lieberman, J. D., & Arndt, J. (2000). Understanding the limits of limiting instructions: Social
psychological explanations for the failures of instructions to disregard
pretrial publicity and other inadmissible evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 677-711. http://conium.org/~maccoun/LP_LiebermanArndt.pdf
REQUIRED:
Sommers, S. R., & Ellsworth, P. E. (2003). How much do we
really know about race and juries?
Jury deliberation
REQUIRED: Kerr, N. L., Niedermeier,
K. E., & Kaplan, M. F. (1999). Bias in jurors vs bias in
juries: New evidence from the
The psychology of the
bench: Judges vs. juries
REQUIRED: Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J.J., &
Wistrich, A.J. (2001). Inside the judicial mind (summary version
from Dispute Resolution Alert; full article appeared in the May 2001 Cornell
Law Review). http://conium.org/~maccoun/LP_GuthrieRachlinskiWistrich2001.pdf
RECOMMENDED: Robbennolt, J. K. (2002). Punitive
damage decision making: the decisions of citizens and trial court judges. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 315-41. http://conium.org/~maccoun/LP_Robbennolt2002.pdf
Moral reasoning:
Rationalist view
REQUIRED: Mikhail, J. (2007), Universal moral grammar: Theory,
evidence, and the future. Trends in Cognitive Science, 11,
143-152. [Warning: This is highly
technical, but worth struggling with.] http://conium.org/~maccoun/LP_Mikhail2007_UniversalMoralGrammar.pdf
Moral reasoning:
Intuitionist view
REQUIRED: Haidt, Jonathan. (2001). The emotional dog
and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review. 108, 814-834. http://conium.org/~maccoun/LP_Haidt.pdf
Legal vs. scientific
views of causation and responsibility
REQUIRED:
Bargh, J. A., & Morsella, E. (2008). The unconscious mind.
Perspectives in Psychological
Science, 3, 73-79. http://conium.org/~maccoun/LP_Bargh
and Morsella.pdf
REQUIRED:
RECOMMENDED: Wegner, D. M. (2003). The mind's best trick:
How we experience conscious will. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 65-69.http://conium.org/~maccoun/LP_Wegner2003.pdf
Lay notions of
responsibility
REQUIRED: Hamilton, V. L. (1980). Intuitive psychologist or intuitive lawyer? Alternative models of the attribution process. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 767-772. http://conium.org/~maccoun/LP_Hamilton
1980.pdf
RECOMMENDED:
Tetlock, P. E. (2003). Thinking the unthinkable:
sacred values and taboo cognitions.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 320-324. http://cogsci.bme.hu/~ivady/bscs/read/taboos.pdf
Psychiatric diagnosis
and mental illness
REQUIRED: Swets, J. A., Dawes, R. M., & Monahan, J.
(2000). Better decisions through
science. Scientific American, 283, 82-88. http://conium.org/~maccoun/LP_SwetsDawesMonahan2000.pdf
RECOMMENDED: Borum, R., & Fulero, S. M. (1999). Empirical
research on the insanity defense and attempted reforms: Evidence toward informed
policy. Law & Human Behavior, 23, 117-135. http://conium.org/~maccoun/LP_BorumFulero1999.pdf
Children and
adolescents
REQUIRED:
Steinberg, L., et al. (2009). Are adolescents less mature than adults? Minors’ access to abortion, the juvenile death penalty, and the
alleged
REQUIRED:
Fischer, K. W., Stein, Z., & Heikkinen, K. (2009). Narrow
assessments misrepresent development and misguide policy: Comment on Steinberg,
Cauffman, Woolard, Graham, and Banich (2009).
American Psychologist, 64, 595-600.
http://gseweb.harvard.edu/~ddl/articlesCopy/Fischer_H_S_Narrow_Assessments_Mislead.AmPsy2009.pdf
How do people judge the
fairness of procedures?
REQUIRED: MacCoun, R. J. (2005). Voice,
control, and belonging: The double-edged sword of procedural fairness. Annual
Review of Law and Social Science, 1, 171-201. http://conium.org/~maccoun/MacCoun_ARLSS2005.pdf
Note:
There is now a vast literature on the psychology of procedural justice, much of
it due to the work of Tom Tyler. I highly recommend you search for his
work, and pick out a piece on your particular interests – he's written about
three strikes, racial profiling, counterterrorism, community policing, water
conservation, Supreme Court opinions, and many other topics.
How do people judge the
fairness of outcomes?
REQUIRED:
Ellman,
RECOMMENDED: Mitchell, Gregory; Tetlock, Philip E.;
Newman, Daniel G.; & Lerner, Jennifer S. (2003). Behind the
veil: Structural influences on judgments of social justice. Political
Psychology, 24, 519-538. http://conium.org/~maccoun/LP_MitchellTetlockNewmanLerner2003.pdf
Compensatory and
punitive damages
REQUIRED: Greene, E., & Loftus, E. (1998). Psycholegal research on jury damage awards. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 7, 50-54. http://conium.org/~maccoun/LP_GreeneLoftus1998.pdf
RECOMMENDED:
MacCoun, R. J. (1996). Differential treatment of
corporate defendants by juries: An examination of the 'deep pockets'
hypothesis. Law and Society Review, 30, 121-161.
RECOMMENDED:
MacCoun, R. J. (2006). Media reporting of jury
verdicts: Is the tail (of the distribution) wagging the dog?, Clifford
Symposium on Tort Law,
Anger, catharsis, and
the desire for retribution
REQUIRED: Carlsmith, K., Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert,
D. T. (2008). The
paradoxical consequences of revenge.
Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 95, 1316-1324.
http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~dtg/CARLSMITH,%20WILSON,%20&%20GILBERT%20(2008).pdf
RECOMMEND: PE Tetlock, PS Visser, et al. (2007). People
as intuitive prosecutors: The impact of social-control goals on attributions of
responsibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 195-209. http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/tetlock/pdfsnewones/2006%20JESPintprosecutor.pdf
RECOMMENDED: Carlsmith,
K. (2006). The roles of retribution
and utility in determining punishments.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 437-451. http://conium.org/~maccoun/LP_Carlsmith.pdf
Death qualification in
capital trials
REQUIRED: Bersoff, D. N., & Ogden, D. W. (1987). In the
Supreme Court of the United States Lockhart v. McCree: Amicus curiae brief for
the
RECOMMENDED: Gross, S. R.,, &
Ellsworth, P. C. (2003). Second
thoughts: Americans' views on the death penalty at the turn of the
century. In S. P. Garvey (ed.), Beyond repair?:
Cognition, emotion, and
risk regulation
REQUIRED: Kahan, D. (2010). Fixing the communications failure. Nature,
4630, 296-297. http://conium.org/~maccoun/LP_Kahan2010.pdf
REQUIRED: Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280-285. http://conium.org/~maccoun/LP_Slovic1987.pdf
RECOMMENDED: MacCoun, R. (1998). Toward a psychology of harm
reduction. American Psychologist, 53, 1199-1208. http://conium.org/~maccoun/AmPsych1998.pdf
RECOMMENDED:
Sinaceur, M., Heath, C., & Cole, S..
(2005). Emotional and deliberative reactions to a public crisis: Mad cow
disease in
Deterrence
REQUIRED:
MacCoun, R. J. (1993). Drugs and the law: A
psychological analysis of drug prohibition. Psychological Bulletin, 113,
497-512.
RECOMMENDED:
MacCoun, R., Pacula, R. L., Reuter, P., Chriqui, J., Harris, K. (2009). Do citizens
know whether they live in a decriminalization state? State marijuana laws
and perceptions. Review of Law & Economics, 5(1, 347-371.
Does money buy
happiness? How punishing is punishment?
REQUIRED:
Kahneman, D., et al. (2006). Would you be happier if you were richer? A focusing illusion. Science,
312, 1908-1910. http://conium.org/~maccoun/LP_Kahneman
et al2006.pdf
RECOMMENDED:
Bronsteen, J., Buccafusco, C., & Masur, J. (2009). Happiness and punishment.
The
Paternalism,
psychology, and law
REQUIRED:
Camerer, C., Issacharoff, S., Loewenstein, G., O'Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M.
(2003). Regulation for conservatives: Behavioral economics and the case for
"asymmetric paternalism."
Does neuroscience have
radical implications for law?
REQUIRED:
Greene, J., & Cohen, J. (2004). For the law, neuroscience
changes nothing and everything. Phil
Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B., 359, 1775-1785.
http://conium.org/~maccoun/LP_Greene
Cohen_neurosci.pdf
RECOMMENDED: Morse, S. J. (2005). Brain
overclaim syndrome and criminal responsibility: A diagnostic note. Ohio
St. Crim. L., 3, 397-412. http://conium.org/~maccoun/LP_Morse2005.pdf
Revised: