Psychology and Law- Theories, Principles, Roles, and Influences
Psychology and law interconnect in several ways. Some of the areas of connection are in the area of criminal profiling, where legal experts call in psychologists to create criminal profiles based on the common behaviors that can connect to certain criminals. There are also cases where psychologists are called in to evaluate the reliability of certain witnesses to crimes. Psychologists are also brought into the criminal justice system to offer advocacy and support to criminals. In other words, they may also act as advocates for criminals or the general public. At the same time, they are greatly involved in the juvenile justice system. They inform policies involving juvenile delinquents and also ensure the protection of the rights of these young criminals. Due to this connection, which started steadily in the 1960s, the criminal justice system has undergone a great transformation. However, there are emerging issues like the principles that link the two, the factors that influence the two, and points at which dilemma and conflict arise. After assessing these issues through a review of the literature, the conclusion made is that psychology has an important impact on law, even though their relationship should be streamlined and certain limits discussed.
Literature Review
The connection between psychology and law is first seen in the principles that connect the two of them. The first principle sighted here by Freckelton (2023) is the relationship between psychology and law, where psychology can influence court decisions. The researcher points out very important points when explaining this principle, beginning with the connection between psychology and law from history. One point that emerges from this discussion is that psychiatrists have been involved in legal matters since the 1960s. The second thing that is emerging is the issue of concern where the psychiatrist uses only two taxonomies, which are used for diagnosis. These taxonomies are the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases and the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Even though they are the most applied taxonomies, each emerging case is different from another, and it reaches a point where certain illnesses are not defined in these taxonomies thus arousing controversies. Petherick and Brooks (2020), in their research, identify another principle that connects law and psychology, which is criminal profiling. Criminal profiling takes place when psychological experts are consulted to understand and describe certain criminal behaviors. This approach is aimed at helping the legal system prevent crimes and also change individuals in correctional facilities. In their study, Petherick and Brooks (2020) suggest that the CRIME approach in profiling is the most suitable since it does not only examine the mind of the criminal but also evaluates the crime scenes. These two principles discussed herein show how psychology, being a very distinct discipline, merges well with law when it comes to understanding and helping criminals. Psychology thus proves helpful to the criminal justice system.
Apart from psychology being helpful to the criminal justice system, some things influence these two disciplines, even though they are distinct. Huminuik et al. (2022) point out that the one thing that connects these two disciplines is human rights. Psychology as a field is concerned with matters of human rights through the American Psychological Association (APA) Task Force on Human Rights. Through this body, psychiatrists are also mandated to examine human welfare, public interests, and even social justice. One thing that should be noted in this relationship is that there are moments when dilemmas may occur, especially for the psychiatrists. The emergence of the dilemma will be discussed later in this discourse. Neuropsychology as a subject also connects these two disciplines. Neuropsychology can be considered to be a discipline within the psychology discipline, even though it focuses more on the biological side of the brain. Catley and Claydon (2023) are of the belief that neuropsychology is connecting the two disciplines. For a better explanation of this point, the researchers used the cases of the Netherlands, Argentina, Canada, England, Slovenia, Scotland, the United States, and Australia. These are nations that hold the view that neuropsychology and psychology, in general, are needed when trying to understand certain criminal cases, even though they are placing some limitations on the level at which psychology should be involved in criminal cases. One thing that this study clarifies is that psychological knowledge is needed and cannot be alienated from criminal decision-making. It also helps to prevent future crimes and help prevent recidivism.
Another important idea emerging from the studies is the influence that law may have on psychology. From the discussions and studies examined, it is evident that psychology influences court decisions. However, it is also important to examine if there are legal moves that can also influence psychology as far as its involvement in legal matters is concerned. Flynn et al. (2021) examined the legal decisions that can create ethical dilemmas for psychology. To give a better perspective, the researcher considered the case of Ohio House Bill 658. through the study, the researchers discovered that there are occasions when psychologists can be caught in a legal dilemma because they are required to support the legal system, but at the same time, they have the mandate to consider the welfare of the general public. As such, there are cases when they may be forced to engage in advocacy, which may lead to them participating in civil disobedience. Cosgrove and Shaughnessy (2020) expound on this discussion by looking at the connection between psychology and law and the points of conflict especially when it comes to cases touching on the mental state or sanity of the criminal. In many cases, psychiatrists are called to determine the mental state or explain the behavior of a criminal. In this study, Cosgrove and Shaughnessy (2020) the researchers point out the need for a census between the criminal justice system and psychologists on such matters. The other thing that they point out is the fact that psychiatrists may have commercial interests in their interpretation of criminal behavior in relation to a legal decision. Due to such interests, the researchers are of the opinion that psychologists’ influence on legal decisions should be controlled or limited.
Discussion and Conclusion
For a long time, there has been an inseparable connection between law and psychology. It is important to begin by noting that these two disciplines are very distinct, and at first, one might not see the connection between the two. This is an idea that is also uncovered in the reviewed literature. The connection or relationship between the two developed due to the desire of the criminal justice system to improve its performance. In other words, the criminal justice systems want to understand human behavior to help prevent crimes before they occur. They also would like to understand the intention behind a criminal’s actions so that they can dispense justice without being carried away by any biases. Therefore, bringing in psychological experts to help give interpretation and understanding of human behavior was very crucial. As such, this relationship is influenced by certain principles, and two of them are discussed in the reviewed literature. The first principle is the influence of psychology on court decisions and the second is the diagnosis of behaviors, emotional and mental illnesses using only two taxonomies. The emerging concern here is that since research is expanding and new illnesses are emerging, the use of only two taxonomies can make psychiatrists have a questionable influence on court decisions. This is therefore an area that needs to be streamlined. Also, since human rights connect these two disciplines conflicts and dilemmas may arise.
In conclusion, it is evident that psychology is needed in the legal field. it is also evident that psychological inputs have helped in court decisions and have helped the criminal justice system improve so much in the past few decades. However, there is a need for this relationship to be streamlined and certain factors examined to ensure there is no conflict between the two. In the area of principles, experts in the two disciplines need to understand the influence that they have on the criminal justice dispensation, and especially the prevention of crimes. As such, constant communication and sharing of newly emerging information is important for the two to work together seamlessly. Secondly, experts need to recognize and accept the connection between the two. Human rights, for instance, is a very important link between the two. Experts should ensure that their signs of progress and transformations all work together to ensure human rights are upheld. Issues of conflict should thus be addressed. Finally, there should be a limit to the use of psychiatric expertise in the criminal justice system. Over-interpretation of criminal behavior may create a scenario where crimes are excused. It is important to note that not all criminal behavior is a result of psychiatric issues. Many are a result of a deliberate decision by people to behave contrary to societal laws.
References
Catley, P., & Claydon, L. (2023). Why neuroscience changes some things but not everything for the law. Handbook of Clinical Neurology, 197, 251–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0- 12-821375-9.00016-5
Cosgrove, L., & Shaughnessy, A. F. (2020). Mental Health as a Basic Human Right and the Interference of Commercialized Science. Health and human rights, 22(1), 61–68.
Flynn, A. W. P., Domínguez, S., Jordan, R. A. S., Dyer, R. L., & Young, E. I. (2021). When the political is professional: Civil disobedience in psychology. The American psychologist, 76(8), 1217–1231. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000867
Freckelton I. (2023). Expert Diagnostic Evidence By Psychologists: Disciplinary Tensions and Admissibility Issues. Journal of law and medicine, 30(1), 58–69.
Huminuik, K., O’Connor, M., Dockett, K., Kallivayalil, D. J., McFarland, S. G., & Wyndham, J. M. (2022). Moving human rights to the forefront of psychology: Summary of the final report of the APA task force on human rights. The American psychologist, 77(4), 589– 601. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000897
Petherick, W., & Brooks, N. (2020). Reframing criminal profiling: a guide for integrated practice. Psychiatry, psychology, and law: an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 28(5), 694–710. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1837030
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
We’ll write everything from scratch
Question
Final Position Paper
In Week 3 you conducted an annotated bibliography using the course competencies as a guide in choosing the articles. For this week you will take that information and incorporate it into a final paper. The paper is not just the literature review of the articles you found, it is a culmination of what you have learned over the course. As in Week 3, use the course competencies as a guide to developing your paper.

Psychology and Law- Theories, Principles, Roles, and Influences
The major theories associated with psychology and law.
The major principles related to psychology and law.
The role of psychology in the legal system from a historical perspective.
The historical and contemporary roles of psychology and the legal system.
Major influences on the field of psychology and law.
Multifaceted nature of psychology in law and recognize evolving trends.
The changes in the legal system that may pose ethical dilemmas for psychology