Chapter 2 – Social Science and Psychological Influences in Law
MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS:
1. Muller vs. Oregon was a significant case in 1908 in which
a. the Supreme Court disregarded all evidence of social science data
indicating the detrimental effects on women’s health from women
working in factories
b. took into account social science data, even though it was not
technically seen as an “authority”
c. no social science evidence was presented
d. the first abortion was made legal in the U.S. due to social science
data
2. Legal theorists like Holmes and Brandeis believed all of the following except
a. law is based on common values and follows an abstract universal
law
b. law should be approached pragmatically, as a means to the end of
establishing social policies
c. judges and scholars should study the actual social effects of legal
institutions and doctrines
d. laws were derived from natural universal laws
3. In the 1930’s and 1940’s, legal realism
a. opposed Brandeis’ and Pound’s pragmatic approach to law
b. understood law as a vehicle for advancing social goals and
advancing the general course, methods and principles
governments use to manage public affairs
c. observed that the legal system was not a flawless entity and drastic
reforms took place in order to change the system
d. none of the above
4. After World War I, the use of social science in a court of law
a. was considered and is still considered taboo to this day
b. became more prominent due to post war movements
c. did not change. It had always been in acceptance.
d. once a huge fad, now faded in the background and was no longer
seen as credible
49
5. Developed in the 1990’s, “ therapeutic jurisprudence”
a. gives more protection to defendants who have diagnosed mental
conditions
b. tries to organize social science findings into legislative facts
c. is the result of legal systems reforms and new courts with the goal
of producing legal, social, psychological, and medical services to
produce therapeutic effects and to study how mental health can
shape the law
d. tries to make the courtroom experience less traumatizing and
invasive for first time offenders and juveniles.
6. In a social framework testimony
a. an expert witness is not asked about any specific facts during the
trial, but gives the judge/jury general, background information
b. the expert witness is required to give a full, detailed report of the
facts
c. jurors are given an overview of the societal influences that may
have led to the criminal act
d. social scientists give testimony to enlighten legistive panels about
the impact of research on social policy
7. Social scientists can influence policy by
a. working for executive agencies, like state and welfare agencies
b. by preparing research summaries on social problems for
legislatiors (i.e., sexual predator laws)
c. lobbying
d. all of the above
8. To bring research to the attention of courts, social scientists
a. get the attention of the mass media, hoping to influence public
opinion and, therefore, pressure courts to accept findings
b. file Amicus briefs
c. organize large protest rallies and have them form outside legal
buildings
d. all of the above
9. In order for expert testimony to be admitted
a. It has to be help prove the fact at issue
b. the probative value has to outweigh any predjudicial or misleading
effects the information might have
c. Both A and B
d. Neither A nor B
50
10. The Daubert decision affected the admission of social science evidence in
court cases by
a. raising the question of when scientific evidence resulting from
social science techniques should be considered valid and leading
to the establishment of the criteria for social science validity.
b. disregarding testimonies of “experts” as mere opinions and nothing
more.
c. increasing the number of mentally ill defendants who escaped
incarceration and instead were placed in mental institutions.
d. elevating the opinions of experts and solely basing trial outcomes
on them.
11. Dr. Johnson indicates in his testimony that he tested the defendant in his
office using a measure designed to identify suggestibility in an effort to help
the defendant’s claim that he was coerced by the police into speaking with
them. The judge rules this information inadmissible because the setting in
which the defendant was tested is not the same as an interrogation. This is a
problem of
a. external validity.
b. test-retest reliability.
c. internal validity.
d. internal consistency.
EXTENDED QUESTIONS:
1. Is it fair for the court to partly base its decisions on the opinion of another
individual, even if this person is considered an expert? Could there be an
issue of bias? Is a decision based upon “expert” testimony more warranted in
some cases as opposed to others? What about in death penalty cases? Are
there alternatives for helping judges look at complex evidence?
2. It is apparent that psychologists view human behavior differently than lawyers
do. What kinds of problems does this create in the courtroom? What might
some solutions be? Use ideas from text and some of your own.
3. Psychology is not value free, or in other words, what a person believes will
influence research. To what degree do you feel this is
appropriate/inappropriate? What are some ethical issues involved and what
do you feel is the proper role for psychology in society?
4. What is meant by internal and external validity? How does these effect the
application of research to the courtroom setting?
51
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR CHAPTER 2:
2.1 Social science data
a) Were summarized in a footnote to a Supreme Court opinion in Muller v.
Oregon in 1908
b) Were cited specifically in a footnote support of the Court’s unanimous
opinion in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954
c) Are now are found in the body of many court opinions along with
citations to legal case
d) All of the above
2.2 Social science and historical data were
a) not used by legal scholars until the legal realism school took hold.
b) Not relevant in traditional jurisprudence
c) Not important to those who believed that experience not logic was central
to law
d) Not important because the law on the books is the same as the law in
action
2.3 Today, many social scientists and mental health practitioners
a) are barred from giving evidence in court by the rules of evidence
b) testify in court, but are not permitted to testify to legislatures on matters of
policy
c) provide services to police and correctional agencies, but not to family
court
d) find research by cognitive, developmental and social psychologists
relevant to their work
2.4 Today, there is an infrastructure of organizations, training, journals etc. that
a) supports the growth of the field of law-psychology
b) impedes the growth of the field of law-psychology
c) is not found in law schools
d) was blocked because judges can decide what science is admissible in
evidence
2.5 In the school of thought labeled therapeutic jurisprudence
a) traditional legal rights are not considered important for the law
b) adherents believe that legal rules and actions affect the mental health of
participants
c) adherents believe that legal actors should maximize the therapeutic effect
of law no matter the due process considerations
d) adherents are opposed to the development of specialized courts for nonadversarial dispute resolution
52
2.6 Social science evidence presented in a specific trial, if admitted, is relevant to
a) support the defense’s position
b) support the prosecution’s position
c) help determine an issue in contention in the trial
d) the tripartite classification of psychological evidence
53
2.7 Social scientists have several avenues for informing policy makers about
research relevant to legislation. These include
a) providing legislative facts in a congressional hearing
b) serving on a special commission created by Congress
c) working for administrative agencies which provide reports to congress
d) all of the above
2.8 Psychologists are ethically prohibited
a) from lobbying congress on :”guild” or professional issues
b) from advocating for the interests of clients by lobbying
c) from working as lobbyists to influence congress
d) none of the above
2.9 If an expert is testifying at a trial and summarizes research, he or she
a) is providing social framework testimony
b) risks being charged with contempt of court
c) is undermining traditional beliefs about parenting
d) is behaving unethically and is subject to professional discipline
2.10 Amicus briefs are
a) an effective means of bringing the results of science to the attention of a
trial court
b) often controversial because members of a professional have different
views about whether the underlying science is sufficiently developed to be
relevant to a court
c) uncontroversial because they are meant only to provide information and
not to influence a decision
d) submitted to bring research to the attention of an appellate court
2.11 Expert testimony differs from testimony by ordinary witnesses because
a) experts can’t express opinions and are limited to what they have seen or
heard
b) it is not given under oath
c) it is not subject to cross examination
d) it is supposed to provide something beyond commonly known information
2.12 When expert evidence is presented to a judge, under the Dauber decision
the judge acts as a “gatekeeper”
a) to try to exclude “junk” science from coming into evidence
b) but does not have to be concerned with junk science because the witness
is a true expert
c) in order to “frye” an expert who seems overly confident about his or her
conclusions
d) in order to make sure the witness is fully confident about his or her
testimony
54
2.13
a)
b)
c)
d)
An expert witness may offer an opinion based on his or her “experience”
and a judge has no role as a gatekeeper in that instance
but the judge may rule it is not admissible if it is too speculative
because the rule is designed to encourage speculation by the expert
because experience not logic is the fundamental principle of law
2.14
a)
b)
c)
Law’s fundamental role is society is to
support rapid social change as conditions change
support gradual social change and ensure social stability
help social scientists to throw out and radically alter hypotheses when the
evidence changes
d) bring about rapid acceptance of social science challenges to traditional
social values
2.15 Because their testimony is subject to cross examination, expert
psychological testimony may become
a) more speculative and depart further from the research base because
psychologists gain in prestige when they testify in court
b) more grounded in studies with internal validity because that is most
relevant to courts
c) less speculative and more concerned with external or ecological validity
d) more dramatic because research doesn’t have to be “on point” for the
legal issues in the case
2.16 Psychologists have something to offer the legal system in amicus briefs
because
a) their research is objective and value free
b) they are liberals whose views are based on research
c) they are conservatives whose views are based on research
d) they can present research bearing on legal issues often without
supporting either
side.
55
Chapter 2 Test Bank Key
2.1 B
2.2 D
2.3 B
2.4 B
2.5 C
2.6 A
2.7 D
2.8 B
2.9 C
2.10 A
2.11 A
Additional Questions
2.1 D
2.2 B
2.3 D
2.4 A
2.5 B
2.6 C
2.7 D
2.8 D
2.9 A
2.10 D
2.11 D
2.12 A
2.13 B
2.14 B
2.15 C
2.16 D