Forensic science will be one of the topics of further examination, as the growth of this field of study in recent decades represents a revolution in crime detection and prosecution. Furthermore, Summer School classes will examine the factors that affect the accuracy of eyewitnesses’ attempts at identification. Special attention will be given to the psychology of false confession. The police interviewing in particular, is a dramatic high-tension interchange between a small number of individuals (police, suspect, lawyers) each of who has much at stake. Faced with poor success in finding reliable cues to deception, researchers‘ attention is now being drawn to exploring how to interview more intelligently; in order to make guilty suspects‘ lies easier to spot. Workshops will be dedicated to specific cases study, covering issues such as child abuse, domestic violence or rape survivors.
Classes of the Summer School will focus on:
Jury Systems, Selection, and Perceptions of Evidence
Jury systems and service are considered a vital part of the criminal justice system in many countries. The social and legal import of juror perceptions and decisions has led to decades of research on jury selection and perceptions of varying types of evidence. With reviews of the US and UK jury systems as a backdrop, in this session we: a) discuss the process of jury selection, b) evaluate the impact and ways of dealing with pre-trial publicity, and c) explore research on juror individual differences and perceptions of various types of scientific evidence.
Psychology of False Confessions
McCormick (1972) stated that confession evidence “makes the other aspects of a trial in a court superfluous” (p. 316). Indeed, in criminal law, confession evidence is common and extremely powerful. But confessions are fallible: according to the Innocence Project, false confessions played a role in approximately 25% of the post-conviction DNA exonerations in its database (www.innocenceproject.org). In this session, we examine why people confess to crimes they didn’t commit and current recommendations for police policy and practice.
Expert testimony is among the most influential evidence in criminal and civil trials alike. Despite its potent influence, expert testimony has also been the subject of great criticism by legal and social science scholars and practitioners. In learning about expert testimony, in this session we will first gain an overview of the guidelines, purposes and nature of expert testimony. With this background, we will then: a) discuss a social psychological framework of expert witness credibility, b) evaluate potential biases and critiques of expert witnesses, and c) examine the research on situational and dispositional factors influencing perceptions of experts.
Counter to what we all like to believe, police officers are not very good at detecting deception when they pay attention to a person’s behaviour. In this session, we will consider the erroneous beliefs people hold about cues to deception, the factors that hinder our ability to detect lies, the accuracy of various lie detection methods, and the objective indicators of deception and truth.
Non-standard Police Lineups
Despite over 40 years of research into how best to construct and administer lineups (identification parades), the literature remains largely silent on how the construction of lineups involving people with distinctive facial features affects eyewitness identification performance. In this session, we will discuss new research that suggests current police procedures any many parts of the world could lead to unnecessarily low rates of correct identifications and high rates of false identifications.
Privacy and DNA Databases
The potential of DNA profiling as an investigative tool, and the modern recognition of the desirability of affording legal protection to physical and psychological privacy, present a dilemma for legal systems. To what extent should it be possible to collect, store and deploy information about the DNA of citizens? How should the public interest in the suppression and detection of crime be balanced against personal interests in privacy? This session will consider the concept of privacy and why it deserves protection and will examine these issues from the perspectives of effective crime control and human rights.
Proof of Identity and Eyewitness Identification Procedures
The law has long-acknowledged the risk of error associated with eyewitness identifcation evidence. There is a substantial body of psychological research on the factors that affect the accuracy of eyewitnesses attempts at identification. In this session a systematic examination of various legal procedural safeguards is undertaken. Consideration will be given to the regulation of pre-trial procedures, exclusionary rules, the reception of expert evidence, and jury warnings. Procedural rules and guidelines in various jurisdictions will provide the basis of discussion.
The Psychology of Police Interviews
The police interview is a dramatic high-tension interchange between a small number of individuals (police, suspect, lawyers) each of whom has much at stake. The psychological assumption justifying the procedure is that the products of the interview – confession, a lie, incrimination of another or silence – will be of value in finding the truth. This session will examine the complex psychology of police interviews and will seek to re-evaluate public assumptions and legal procedures in the light of these psychological insights.
There is always room for error in any legal process. For example, malpractice can occur, eyewitnesses can be wrong, and flawed trials can proceed. Unfortunately, these errors have sometimes resulted in guilty offenders being acquitted and innocent people being wrongly convicted. In 1992, the United States Innocence Project began asking for post-conviction DNA evidence to help exonerate people who had been wrongfully convicted. Since then, the Innocence Project has used DNA evidence to help free 289 people who were convicted for crimes they did not commit. This session will look at why wrongful convictions occur around the world, and what psychology has to say about the problem.
Why and how do false confessions occur? Unfortunately, our knowledge of false confessions is still relatively limited. However, psychology and law researchers have made considerable progress over the previous years, and scientists are starting to understand the frequency, causes and types of false confessions. This session will focus on how often false confessions occur, why people do it, and what can be done to reduce the likelihood of false confessions.
False and Recovered Memories
This session will review the growing body of research on false memories, and look at how that research has been applied to the legal context. Thirty years of research into memory errors shows that our memories are constantly being updated. As a result, we can develop false memories for events we see and experiences we have. We can misremember aspects of events and whole events themselves.
Interviewing to Detect Deception
Many people–including police investigators–believe they can reliably tell when people are lying. In spite of this common belief, a huge number of studies show that people’s ability to detect deception is rarely better than chance. Faced with poor success in finding reliable cues to deception, researchers‘ attention is now being drawn to exploring how to interview more intelligently, in order to make guilty suspects‘ lies easier to spot.
SATURDAY 1 July
12.00 – 18.00 Registration
18.30 – 19.30 Orientation / Ice Breaking Session /Egle Havrdova/
20.00 Welcome Dinner /Restaurant “Hlučná Samota”, Záhřebská 14/
SUNDAY 2 July
10.00 – 11.15 Introduction to Program
11.15 – 11.30 Coffee Break
11.30 – 12.45 Lecture 1
12.45 – 15.00 Lunch
15.00 – 18.00 Tours of Prague
19.00 Dinner /Restaurant “Hlučná Samota”/
MONDAY 3 July
09.30 – 10:45 Lecture 2
10.45 – 11.00 Coffee Break
11.00 – 12.15 Lecture 3
12.15 – 13.00 Lunch
13.00 Departure for site visit
14.00 – 15.00 Site visit
16.30 – 17.30 Guest Lecture
18.00 – 19.00 Happy Hour /Café v Lese/
19.30 Dinner /Restaurant “Hlučná Samota”/
TUESDAY 4 July
09.30 – 10.45 Lecture 4
10.45 – 11.15 Coffee Break
11.15 – 12.30 Lecture 5
12.30 – 14.00 Lunch
14.00 – 15.15 Workshop 1
15.15 – 15.30 Coffee Break
15.30 – 16.45 Workshop 2
17.30 – 18.30 Guest Lecture
19.00 – 20.00 Dinner /Restaurant “Hlučná Samota”/
21.00 Clubbing in Prague
WEDNESDAY 5 July
Free Day!!!: Tours of Prague /Pool Party/ Trip to Kutna Hora
20.00 Dinner /Restaurant “Hlučná Samota”/
22.00 Czech Movie at the Summer School venue
THURSDAY 6 July
09.30 – 10.45 Lecture 6
10.45 – 11.00 Coffee Break
11.00 – 12.15 Lecture 7
12.15 – 13.30 Lunch
13.30 – 14.45 Workshop 3
14.45 – 15.00 Coffee Break
15.00 – 16.15 Workshop 4
17.30 – 18.30 Guest Lecture
19.00 Dinner /Restaurant “Hlučná Samota”/
21.00 – 23.00 Boat Tour
FRIDAY 7 July
09.30 – 10.45 Lecture 8
10.45 – 11.00 Coffee Break
11.00 – 12.15 Workshop 5
12.45 – 16.00 Lunch / Free Time
17.00 Departure for Gröbeho vila
17.30 – 19.00 Commencement
20.00 FAREWELL PARTY/Gröbeho vila, Havlíčkovy sady, Praha 2/
SATURDAY 8 July
James Hill was a child protective services (CPS) social worker and family therapist in the states of Washington and New Mexico, USA. He worked in the crimes against children unit and worked closely with the courts and police for nearly 20 years. In the past 8 years he has been an assistant professor at MCI in Innsbruck, Austria teaching courses related to children and families and self-development. He also currently teaches a course in Forensic psychology at SWPS in Warsaw, Poland and has just started a position in the humanities department at South Bohemia University in Ceske Budejovice.
Dr. Julie Gawrylowicz is a Senior Lecturer at London South Bank University, where she started in April 2014 as Lecturer. From 2011 – 2014, she was a Teaching Associate and Postdoctoral Researcher at Royal Holloway, University of London. She received her PhD in Applied Cognitive Psychology from the University of Abertay in Dundee in 2010. Julie did her MSc and BSc at the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands. Julie’s research interests lie in the area of cognitive and social psychology, both theoretical and applied, encompassing research on memory, face recognition, and metacognition with a focus on forensic applications. She is particularly interested in the performance and experience of vulnerable groups within the Criminal Justice System, including individuals with learning disabilities, older adults, and children. She recently started a new line of research examining the impact of alcohol on eyewitness memory performance.
The Honorable Judge Brad A. Weinreb is a California Superior Court Judge. He previously presided over criminal trials and now is in a family law department, which includes domestic violence restraining order hearing. Before he became a judicial officer, he spent almost 25 years as a prosecutor in the California Attorney General’s Office, where he served as a State Coordinator for victim advocacy and the civil commitment of sexually violent predators and was lead counsel on serious and violent felony prosecutions, including death penalty litigation. He has authored numerous articles on crime victim rights and trained both prosecution and law enforcement agencies. In 2010, he was selected as one of the Top 100 attorneys in California and as one of the Top 10 Criminal Lawyers in his hometown of San Diego, California.
Dr. Josh Davis is a Reader for Psychology in the Department of Psychology at the University of Greenwich. His PhD was on ‚Forensic Identification of Unfamiliar Faces in CCTV Images‘ (2007) and he has published research on human face recognition and eyewitness identification; reliability of facial composite systems (e.g. E-FIT, EFIT-V); and methods used by expert witnesses to provide evidence of identification in court. Josh has presented his research worldwide, with latest research on „super-recognizers“, attracting international media interest including television appearances on the BBC, ITV and other worldwide stations. He works closely with London’s Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) as part of the European Commission funded LASIE (2014) consortium, with the primary aim of ensuring that police forces can identify and optimally deploy officers possessing super-recognition ability. He has also acted as a consultant to other police forces and for business (e.g. Yoti) on identification verification issues. In 2012, he was awarded a University of Greenwich Early Career Research Excellence Award, as well as a University of Greenwich Early Career Research Communicator Award (runner-up). In 2016, he was shortlisted for a Students‘ Union: University of Greenwich Student-Led ‚Extra Mile‘ Teaching Award.
Dr. Wade received her PhD from Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. She is an author and co-author of several publications presenting the outcomes of her research on reproduction and verification of false memories. Dr. Wade has received international grants to support her research from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, the New Zealand Federation of Graduate Women and the American Psychological Society. Her research interests include psychology, memory and law. More specifically, Dr. Wade is interested in how and why people can come to remember childhood events that never occurred. Her PhD research investigated the role of photographic evidence in the creation of false childhood memories, and the theoretical and practical implications for legal and clinical settings. More recently Dr. Wade has focused on how people verify memories. That is, how do people determine whether a memory is real or fictitious?
Dr. Cramer completed his Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology and Psychology-Law at the University of Alabama (USA). He is currently an Assistant Professor of Psychology in the clinical-forensic program at Sam Houston State University (Texas, USA). His research integrates personality and social psychological approaches to understanding three areas of expertise: LGBT issues/hate crime victimization, suicide risk models, and trial consulting. Dr. Cramer has published extensively in these areas in outlets including Law and Human Behavior, Psychology, Public Policy and Law, and Suicide & Life-Threatening Behavior. He previously received funding from the National Science Foundation, American Psychological Foundation, and American Association of Forensic Psychology. Beginning in 2015, he will also serve as co-editor for the Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research. Dr. Cramer provides workshops and trainings to professional and lay audiences on trial consulting, LGBT issues, and suicide risk assessment, among other topics.
Andrew Clark is a Lecturer in Forensic Psychology at the University of Bedfordshire, UK. He obtained his PhD in Legal Psychology from the University of Portsmouth, UK and Maastricht University, The Netherlands, focusing on his research on examining the consequence of withdrawing belief about the occurrence of past events. Andrew has extensive teaching experience in Psychology & Criminal Behavior, Psychology & Criminal Justice, as well as Legal Psychology. His research interests focus on memory, with specific interests in eyewitness testimony and false memories. He has presented his work at several international conferences and authored articles appearing in prominent psychology journals.
Andrew Roberts joined Melbourne Law School in 2011. He was previously an Assistant, and later, Associate Professor in the School of Law at the University of Warwick (2005-2011), and before that, a lecturer in the Law School at the University of Leeds (2003-2005). His research interests lie in criminal procedure and evidence, privacy, and constitutional and political theory. He is a co-author of ‘Identification: Investigation, Trial and Scientific Evidence’, the second edition of which was published in 2011. He has published widely on issues relating to eyewitness identification evidence and on expert evidence. His work has been cited by courts in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. His current research uses republican political theory as a framework for thinking about privacy issues that arise at various stages of the criminal process. Andrew has been a Visiting Senior Fellow in the School of Law at the University of New South Wales (2009), and visiting scholar in the Law School at City University London (2013), and the Department of Philosophy at the University of Amsterdam (2013). He is an external member of the Amsterdam Platform for Privacy Research (APPR) at the University of Amsterdam, and an Associate of the Centre for Media and Communications Law at Melbourne Law School.