ANDOn paper, it seems that Law and Psychology are very different and even incompatible sciences. While objectivity is the tool with which Law is exercised, in Psychology we have increasingly tended towards interpretation and subjectivity.
While, in social perception, law as a profession is traditional, socially consolidated and has a solid history, when talking about psychology, outside of its followers, students and professionals, people do not have solid references and few know the history. of this discipline. There are even those who relate the Viennese Sigmund Freud as the father of Psychology while the works of Wundt, father of scientific psychology, remain anonymous.
It is for this reason that, on many occasions, the performance of psychologists in instances of administration and delivery of justice is often underestimated. Any psychology professional or student who has provided social service in some department will have realized that, apart from the professional colleagues with whom it is possible to meet in the office, for other people we are only those who apply the “little tree” test. “, of the “house” and of the “person.”
The legalistic attitude toward behavioral science has been condescending more often than not; A clear example of this position is the meaning of Wigmore, who in the early 1900s commented that “as long as psychologists were prepared to act in the courtroom, it would be prepared for it, but that the psychology of a witness could say nothing. individual in a case” (Fariña, Arce and Jokuskin, 2000).
The relationship between these two disciplines is closely linked, since both deal with the study of the same phenomenon, behavior.
This reference seems to be distant in time, however, the phenomenon continues to occur. In 2010, Lassus and García-López reported on the state of psychology in Uruguay, that “psychological experts have not achieved a status as such (…) in fact, their objectivity and the validity of what they report are frequently questioned.” Regarding psychological opinions issued in judicial environments, the authors comment that “the reaction to a report, especially if it is psychological, is not without a reasonable bias – to our regret. It is usually received with reluctance and no opinion agrees.”
If you value articles like this, consider supporting us by becoming a Pro subscriber. Subscribers enjoy access to members-only articles, materials, and webinars.
However, the relationship between these two disciplines is closely linked, since both deal with the study of the same phenomenon, behavior. Of course, while psychology is in charge of studying it in its purest form (being), law is in charge of formalizing the guidelines through which it (behavior) must follow (ought to be). Therefore, any attempt by law to allow or restrict individual or social behavior should on paper be endorsed by psychology, who will be in charge of evaluating whether the behavior in question is natural, normal, and whether or not it affects third parties.
Muñoz Sabaté (1981) refers to the relationship between these two disciplines that there are actually three psychologies involved in law: “a psychology of law, which explains the legal essence; psychology in law, which refers to the fact that laws are impregnated with psychological behaviors, and psychology for law, which would involve the intervention of the expert advising the judge.”
In a more didactic way it is possible to interpret:
- A psychology of law It refers to the intrinsic characteristic of human beings of imposing regulatory norms for social coexistence. These imbued patterns are influenced by psychological aspects inherent to individuals immersed in their society and culture at a given time.
- A psychology in law It represents to us the proper purpose of law as a science and profession, which is to standardize and regulate human conduct; It distinguishes those prohibited at a particular sociocultural moment, and is responsible for sanctioning those subjects who fail to comply with said code.
- A psychology for law which constitute all the aspects of psychology applicable to the exercise of law and administration of justice in the areas where it is pertinent, with the psychologist intervening as an expert witness, advisor, tutor, teacher or others.
In this sense, the implementation of the adversarial judicial system throughout Latin America opens a watershed in the administration of justice and, at the same time, provides a second opportunity for psychology to socially claim and legally position itself in its rightful place.
The above is because this system on paper turns out to be more transparent, more public and more scientific, which provides the judicial dynamics with variables with which psychology can work.
Special attention should be paid to recent findings corresponding to cognitive sciences, as well as neurosciences, since these approaches have demonstrated in recent years reliable results based on scientific evidence, as well as psychometrics and statistical psychology. , which help us develop instruments capable of clearly evaluating the characteristics requested by the parties. This coupled with the critical profile that psychology as a social science must possess.
The justice system requires us to move away from subjective diagnostic characteristics and stick to the most valid and reliable tools.
To show the need for cognitive psychological intervention in the judicial field, in the study titled “Extraneous factors in judicial decisions“It was found that the benevolence or harshness of a judge’s decision in the sentence of an accused could be affected depending on whether or not the judge had breakfast before issuing said sentence (Danziger,Levav and Avnaim-Pesso 2011). This has important repercussions on oral justice systems, since the judge has always been understood as the “expert of experts”, an expert in all disciplines, oblivious to emotions and limited to what the law indicates. Another study based on the findings of Kanheman and Tversky on cognitive biases is that of De la Rosa and Sandoval (2010), a psycholegal study where a critique of the judicial system and the decisions of judges is made.
Issues such as mediation, psychological evaluation of minors, crime victims, assessment of precautionary measures for defendants, criminal and victim diagnosis and treatment, custody of minors, selection, training and police and judicial training should be assigned to the professionals of the behavioral sciences, as long as they are able to demonstrate the value of their knowledge.
When talking about the value of the knowledge offered, I am not referring to anything other than the scientific quality of its findings; The new justice system requires us to move away from subjective diagnostic characteristics and stick to the most statistically valid and reliable tools. This task requires professionals with passion, interest, trained in forensic work and not just professionals who are attracted simply by the economic benefit that being an expert in a government institution can represent.
It is predicted that the coming decades will be interesting with respect to the development of psychology in the judicial field. Only time will tell if our work finally achieves both legal and social consolidation.
Bibliography:
Danziger, S., Levav, J., & Avnaim-Pesso, L. (2011). Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(17), 6889–6892. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018033108
De la Rosa Rodríguez, PI, & Sandoval Navarro, VD (2016). Cognitive Biases and Their Influence on Judicial Decisions. Contributions of Legal Psychology to Accusatory Court Criminal Proceedings (The Influence of Cognitive Biases on Court Decisions. Contributions of Legal Psychology to the Adversary Criminal Proceedings).
Farina, F., Arce, R., & Jokuskin, G. (2000). Psychology and Law: Notes on a recent reality. Journal of History of Psychology, 529 – 542.
García-Lopez, E. (2010). Fundamentals of Legal and Forensic Psychology. Mexico: Oxford.
Muñoz Sabaté, L.; Bayés, R. and Munné, F. (2008). Introduction to Legal Psychology. Mexico: Trillas.
Wickens, C.D., Hollands, J.G., Banbury, S., & Parasuraman, R. (2015). Engineering psychology & human performance. Psychology Press.