Forensics and the Forensic View

Source: Matthew Sharps

The Forensic View deals, of course, with issues of forensic psychology. But what exactly does the term “forensic” mean, anyway? What are the implications of that term for psychology?

Anyone who's ever been on a high-school or college debate team is familiar with the term forensics, in reference to rhetoric. The idea originates in ancient Greek rhetorical contests, which ultimately acquired the Latin “forensic” label; in the 18th century, for example, “forensic disputations” were introduced at Yale.

Yet any dictionary will yield two definitions of the word “forensic,” one relating to rhetoric and the other to the criminal justice system. The relationship lies in the fact that adversarial systems of criminal justice must involve forensic disputation, typically between attorneys. That disputation may rely heavily on evidence obtained through “forensic” methods, including the methods of forensic science. Hence the term.

Yet the importance of forensics in the rhetorical sense as well should never be underestimated in criminal justice. In the ancient Athenian trial of Socrates, who was charged with bizarre but essentially irritating “crimes,” a relatively small majority of jurors voted him guilty. A far larger majority voted to execute him.

In other words, based on courtroom rhetoric, dozens of the ancient Greeks, the people who essentially invented our art of rhetoric, voted to kill the man they had previously deemed to be innocent.

Never underestimate the power of rhetoric to capsize logic in the courtroom.

But what about forensic psychology and criminal justice? As a science, forensic psychology is typically probabilistic, frequently telling us about what people tend to do rather than what they will do specifically, as individuals. A given laboratory experiment in forensic psychology, such as those I have conducted for several decades, can show us that juridical decisions tend to be influenced by dissociation on the part of the given juror, or that witnesses tend to discount difficulties of observation in accounts of more violent crimes (Sharps, 2022). These types of experiments show us probabilities in human behavior; they don't tell us the determinative specifics we will see in any given criminal case.

Yet psychological case analyses pose their own scientific hazards, in that in any given case there is no scientific control. Individual differences among cases may drive investigators to beliefs that are wholly in error; this has occurred in cases in which profilers were spectacularly wrong, as they attempted to extrapolate, in an uncontrolled manner, from earlier cases to new situations (see Sharps, 2022). The lack of experimental control in case studies is a problem; but even so, one should never discount the immense importance of case studies in the understanding of individual differences in forensically-relevant behavior.

Experimental forensic psychology and case-based forensic psychology both exhibit advantages, but both also have disadvantages in what they can teach us.

Many other areas of psychology have the same problem, and this problem has often been solved in the same way: by combining approaches, so that the advantages of one approach can compensate for the disadvantages of the other. In studies of animal behavior, and of complex behavioral systems in the human realm as well, specific laboratory experiments which tell us about behavioral tendencies often originate with field observations. These observations show us the behaviors that need to be understood, and the processes involved in those behaviors can then be addressed in controlled laboratory experiments. The experimental results can then be tested for relevance and validity in further field observations (e.g., Tinbergen, 1960).

Field and laboratory research are typically distinct realms, and are sometimes viewed as being in competition. However, in forensic psychology, as in other areas in psychology, the two approaches may actually prove complementary.

Demands on the modern criminal justice system are increasingly heavy (e.g., Sharps, 2022). It is therefore necessary for forensic psychologists to provide the most accurate and up-to-date relevant information. A mutuality of field and laboratory studies, moving back and forth between more field-valid and more precisely controlled experimental approaches, may be exactly what we need in the forensic realm. The controlled experiment teaches us about the psychological processes within which the individual differences of a given case will operate; and case studies of those individual differences, with reference to the broader processes identified in the lab, will provide better information on the given case and on research needs to be further addressed under controlled laboratory conditions. We can use both approaches, field and laboratory, as they inform each other.

In the modern and increasingly complex world of criminal justice, we must consciously select the best ways to obtain accurate and relevant information, both in research and in applied casework. A complementary approach between field and laboratory research, using the advantages of each to minimize the disadvantages of the other, may prove to be a very practical approach.