Legal Psychology and Victimization

The impact of the psychological profiles of the offender and victims on the court evidence presented by the prosecutor and defense teams and witness use

Psychological profiling involves developing a composition of behavioral attributes. It combines psychological and sociological review of the offender. The process of profiling is anchored on the premise that if the crime scene is analyzed carefully and accurately, there is a good chance that the type of person involved in the offence will begin to surface. Therefore, it is based on the idea that some types of people manifest certain behavior tendencies and patterns. A jury informed of such patterns, is better equipped to ascertain probale suspects (Ebisike, 2007).

Profiling driven by psychological processes has an impact on the strategies and suggestions for evidence presentation by both offenders and victims. In the offender's case, profiling suggests the most effective style of interviewing to apply when such an offender has been taken into custody/apprehended. Since offenders vary in their personality and circumstance, interrogation techniques will inevitably vary. Rapists provide a classic case of offenders that need a uniquely different approach in interrogation. Even then, people react to the same questions in different ways. It is important to note, therefore, that a strategy may work with one offender but fail with another; even when they have committed similar crimes. It is known, for instance, that serial killers do it for different reasons. Similarly, those caught for violent offences react differently to interrogation (Ebisike, 2007).

Applying psychological evaluation of the accused can help investigators establish whether the accused is likely to have engaged in behaviors that could have led to the offence in focus. The process is a critical one in the assessing the evidence presented by the victim against the suspected offender. The element of regularity is common. There is a link between the personality of an individual and the potential to commit certain crimes. For instance, a shy and an introvert individual is unlikely (unless they are influenced by liquor of other substance) to crack jokes in public and become a focal point in a public place such as a party. Extroverts do that all the time though. The central principle is the nomothetic trait combined with one's pattern of behavior. It is noted that one cannot be insane selectively. Similarly, disorder cannot be confined to a particular type of behavior or single situation. Normal people act normally. This means that psychological evaluation runs into problems when the behavior under focus borders closely to normal behavior and are of nonviolent form. However, if the behavior under focus in sadistic, intrusive, or deviant in nature, the process of psychological evaluation is indispensable in providing highly useful information in evidence analysis (Underwager & Wakefield, 1995).

In the evidence presentation in the court process, the questions are of legal nature and not psychological. Therefore, answers must also be in a language that the court understands. It is common practice, for instance, for courts to appoint a psychologist to assist in determining an offender's fitness to stand trial in a court of law. Similarly, psychologists are engaged to ascertain the defendant's state of mind when committing the crime. The latter is commonly referred to as the evaluation of an offender's sanity status. The issues here, are therefore, not basically psychological. They are legal questions. It means that psychologists must present the information in a language that suits legal purposes (Forensic psychology).

The import of the psychological profile of the offender and victim in the trial of fact and subsequent sentencing

The psychologist provides relevant, in-depth, psychological information that an average jury could not have deciphered on his or her own. Expert evidence is a common practice in legal procedures and cases. It is possible for an expert witness to significantly influence the jury; even in unwarranted ways (BATMAN, 2012). In the UK, reference to expert analysis is sought by either the prosecution or the defense and not by the court. The police do most of the referring of cases for profiling. The effect of such routine is that the expert may be under pressure to provide favorable opinion to the side that has referred the case. In fact, if the findings do not favor the instructing side, the expert may be asked to doctor the report to favor the referring side. Indeed, such practice is common when experts compile reports for the defense; thus, the courts can easily be misled (BATMAN, 2012).

Psychological profiling techniques have mostly been used in courts have involved the testimony of experts with regard to character evidence and consistency of behavior in criminal cases. Using these expert witnesses has a tremendous effect on the cases and frequently provides evidence that is inadmissible.

Crime assessment, including the establishment of an important element in capital murder offences; such as whether a killing was done for sexual gratification, analysis of uniqueness, support for search warrants, danger assessments and analysis of linkage have frequently been ruled as inadmissible. The UK court of appeal also noted these facts in 2000. So far, according to available records, there have been seventeen instances when criminal trial courts in the U.S. have admitted expert evidence of psychological profiling. Interestingly, the decision to have such evidence has always been overturned in the appellate courts (Meyer, 2008).

The use of psychological profiling seeking to decipher a character analysis have been rejected in court in an attempt to prove one's guilt because they are seen to be over-inclusive and too general. They have the potential of misleading the jury, and being prejudicial to the defense. It was further pointed out that such evidence opens up doors for possible bias; because it becomes stereotypical. The evidence has prejudicial effect but does not usually come with probative value (Meyer, 2008). It is important to evaluate the individual in terms of the specific behavior traits he is accused of. In the event that it is impossible to demonstrate that the accused presents the pathology level that warrants engagement in the behavior under focus, there is an increased possibility of a false accusation (Underwager & Wakefield, 1995).

References

Batman, H. (2012). Offender Profiling and Evidence in Court. Retrieved November 2, 2016 from https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiAvNKS-IrQAhXJwVQKHZE2AN4QFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.taa.gov.tr%2Findir%2Foffender-profiling-and-evidence-in-court-bWFrYWxlfDA4Z

Ebisike, N. (2007). The Use of Offender Profiling Evidence in Criminal Cases.

FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY. Retrieved November 2, 2016, from http://www.peoi.org/Courses/Coursesen/practicing/Resources/Forensic%20.txt

Meyer, C. B. (2008). Criminal Profiling as Expert Evidence? In Criminal Profiling (pp. 207-247). Humana Press.

Underwager, R., & Wakefield, H. (1995). Psychological evaluations you need at trial: What they can and cannot do. Institute for Psychological Therapies,7, 1-32.