Crime and Punishment: Is Insanity That Simple

Perhaps there is no more significant intersection between the fields of psychology and law enforcement than the issue of insanity. The insanity defense, popularized by television and film crime drama as the loophole under which criminals can "get off easy", refers to the legal plea- not guilty by reason of insanity, or NGRI. It is a legal statute that has undergone intense controversy, scrutiny, and change, with the most current Supreme Court standard taken from The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984. Before John Hinkley Jr. was acquitted as NGRI of all charges for the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, our country was much more sympathetic with mentally ill individuals who fell into the arms of the law. The period since can be seen as a far more conservative legal era, with NGRI acquittals at less than .2% for defendants nationally. In this week's post I engaged in the debate over the insanity defense by commenting on two current and cogent blog posts with very different opinions on the use of the NGRI plea. In the post Criminal Insanity, a blogger described simply as Chris who maintains From a Whisper to a Scream, writes a short post on the questionable rationality of even allowing the insanity defense in a current case where a father placed his two-month-old daughter in a microwave. The writer asks the question of his readers, "Does insanity excuse such a heinous crime?" This is a very provocative question that Dr. Delany Dean would probably answer in opposition to Chris, as her occupation as a forensic psychologist and former lawyer provide a more progressive viewpoint on mental health and crime. In her blog entitled mind.expressions, Dean discusses a recent case in which she testified as an expert witness in the post Rollins: Guilty On All Counts. The two authors maintain opposing stances concerning the criminal responsibility of mentally ill defendants, and it is this issue that I joined in the debate by commenting on the blogs in an attempt to advance this web-based dialog. In addition to posting my comments directly on the authors’ respective blog entries, I have also displayed these comments for the reader below.

"Rollins: Guilty On All Counts"
Comment:

Clearly you have an educated opinion and progressive stance on the many issues of mental health that plague this country, especially with regard to those afflicted individuals who find themselves under the scrutiny of the law. As a current student of forensic psychology, the concept of "not guilty by reason of insanity" is only now coming into focus, obscured by media portrayals of the NGRI plea as "getting off easy". In contrast to this myth, you present a woeful tale in which the condemned guilty - Tommy Rollins will only decompensate into psychological ruin in prison instead of being rehabilitated and rescued from the grips of his illness with the proper mental health facilities and resources if he were acquitted. I entirely agree with your statement that the current state of justice is "about vengeance and retribution," a more constructive and rational society would focus its resources and effort on rehabilitation of those who commit crime and prevention of those who might. Yet while the mentally ill are prime candidates for this strategy; being highly treatable, our society provides no leniency towards those failed to conform to our rules of conduct. This is not to say that all who are mentally ill and commit crime should allowed to roam free, but when one can demonstrate a nexus between a mental condition and a specific crime, the criminal responsibility is at question first and foremost, and not the degree of punishment.

All too often it seems people forget that an NGRI acquittal is only pardoning a defendant's criminal guilt and not the consequences of their actions. NGRI acquittees serve an indefinite period of time in psychiatric hospitals until they are no longer considered a danger to society or themselves. I think that the whole "getting off easy" myth continues to prevail because most people don't know that this hospital stay by NGRI's is often a longer period than they would have served in prison had they been found guilty. Thus, the issue that you are most centrally concerned about in this post, the one the public should be concerned about, is the mental health treatment that one should receive regardless of the judge or jury's decision of guilt. Any individual who's mental condition is severe enough to explicitly cause them to commit a crime is in need of much more help than prison's mental health facilities can offer. It is up to us then, should justice be blind to the cause of a crime?

"Criminal Insanity"
Comment:

No crime as horrific and unthinkable as such a man's should follow without consequences, nor should ever be excused. You pose some very poignant questions in your post, and the criminal case they are in reference to is one that addresses the issue of insanity directly. As you suggest, a crime this heinous cannot be excused and an individual capable of such actions must accept the resultant consequences. In answer to your question, no, I do not believe insanity is an excuse, but I do believe that if insanity was the cause for the actions, the punishment should reflect the understanding that unlike other crimes, criminal intent may have been absent, and the psychiatric disorder that is responsible can be treated, controlled, and possibly cured. This treatment cannot happen in a prison setting. Our prisons simply lack the trained professionals, funding and environment to facilitate the rehabilitation of an individual turned criminal by a mental disease.

The insanity defense, or the plea "not guilty by reason of insanity" (NGRI), is one that if upheld acknowledges that the unlawful actions were not completed with a guilty mind or "mens rea," and thus absolves the defendant from a certain amount of responsibility. But an NGRI acquittal also acknowledges the dangerousness of the defendant and thus has severe consequences in accord with the severity of the crime. The truth is that insanity acquittees serve as much or more time in civil commitment to psychiatric hospitals than they would have served in prison had they been found guilty. This is to say that it is a myth that one can go free on insanity; free from insanity maybe, if treated properly, but by no means unconfined.

You do also bring up an interesting issue of an attorney's incentive in filing or advising a plea of NGRI. There is no doubt in most people's mind that some lawyers greedily pursue the most lucrative avenue possible, but it seems unfair to defense attorneys who are genuinely representing the legal and human rights of the accused, even when accused of an unthinkable atrocity. If anything, these attorneys deserve more respect for the thankless job they are doing. differences in opinion aside, thank you for your openness and willingness to hear of people's ideas on the subject, you have opened an important debate.

Driving While Black: Racial Profiling Lands Maryland Police a Hefty Fine

Maryland State Police agreed to a $400,000 settlement on Wednesday in the conclusion of a decade-long case brought on by ACLU civil rights attorneys. The suit was filed on behalf of fourteen Black motorists who were unreasonably harassed by Maryland State Highway Patrol on I-95 in a claim of racial profiling. The six remaining plaintiffs who will be compensated by the settlement all were pulled over without an explanation for such action and subsequently coerced into a warrantless search of their vehicles. Plaintiffs in the case said that the profiling was psychologically damaging because it made them feel powerless and inferior, and that they had no rights. This case is just the most recent in a long history of legal action against law enforcement agencies for alleged racial profiling. And in a time when civil liberties are being placed on hold by the Patriot Act in the racial and ethnic profiling of suspected terrorists, the psychology behind profiling is a much needed subject of study and therefore is the topic of this week's post.

There is an ongoing and heated debate over racial profiling; proponents claim it is a time-tested tool for narrowing down large pools of suspects and critics discredit the practice as unjust. In a highly publicized case, New Jersey police officers claimed that racial profiling was their attempt at efficient crime detection, citing U.S. Department of Justice statistics which show that the incarceration rate for Blacks is six times that of Whites in the United States, and therefore pulling over mostly Black motorists was just playing the odds. While the forensic psychologist's practice of profiling is actually a very useful tool in narrowing down large pools of suspects in certain more uncommon crimes like serial murder, the suggestion that simply because Blacks have a higher arrest rate, police are profiling based on the efficiency and probability is entirely unjust and an irrational. Experts of criminology and sociologists propose many explanations for the disparity in the incarceration data, however, many analyses agree that "the role of race in the criminal justice system is critical", meaning that racial profiling itself is a main reason why Blacks are disproportionately arrested (see chart) in the first place. Therefore the New Jersey officers were not playing the odds, but creating the odds.

In almost all situations, racial profiling can lead to problems and injustice, but profiling in a more general sense, is natural to social beings. Therefore, to understand what racial profiling actually entails, there must be a distinction that is made between overt and conscious discrimination like that uncovered in the previously mentioned Maryland police case and the subconscious gut reactions that affect situations like that of Amadou Diallo, an unarmed Black immigrant who was mistakenly shot at 41 times and killed by four officers after he reached into his jacket for a wallet. Social psychologist Joshua Correll, inspired by news coverage of the Diallo's death, has done some groundbreaking research highly relevant to the instinctive judgments that police officers must make in ambiguous situations. He wanted to see if police officers are any more prejudiced in this manner than the common public so he designed a simple video game in which research participants had the split-second choice of shooting or not shooting the person in multiple pictures (example below) that were flashed on screen for fractions of a second. The pictures included a Black man holding a gun, a White man holding a gun, a Black man holding an innocuous object (such as a wallet or cell phone), or a White man holding a similarly innocuous object. After each picture was flashed on the screen, participants had to press (within 850 milliseconds) either one key to shoot the individual or another key to leave him unharmed but risk being shot themselves. The video game experiment was administered to police officers along with civilians and the results showed a general trend for all that participated. People generally shot more unarmed Blacks than unarmed Whites, and they failed to shoot more Whites than Blacks who actually were holding weapons. Correll explained that, “in the case of African American targets, participants simply set a lower threshold for the decision to shoot.”

It is very disturbing to realize that our society associates Black people with violence or danger more than White people, but sixty years of social psychology involving similarly designed experiments documents this stereotype (Allport & Postman, 1947; Correll, Park, Judd, & Wittenbrink, 2002; Devine, 1989; Duncan, 1976; Greenwald, Oakes, & Hoffman, 2003; Payne, 2001; Sagar & Schofield, 1980). But poor performance on the game does not necessarily mean that a participant is racist, it does however demonstrate the presence of cognitive schema, the psychological term used to describe the mental organization of general rules that influence very quick decisions. These schema are not a function of active prejudice, but are the result of ambient social stereotypes. This is to say that the reactions in the game are too quick to reflect "what you personally believe or want to believe," says Correll, but do reflect "long-standing associations drilled into our heads every time we go to the movies or pick up a newspaper or hear a joke.” Interestingly, data from the game revealed that being familiar with stereotypes of Black males and violence led to more errors than actual belief that Black males are in fact dangerous. Accordingly, while we may not believe in stereotypes, our awareness of them influences how we act and react at an unconscious level.

But to get back to the subject of police profiling, the results are not the same between civilians and police participants. Officers from fourteen states played the video game and constantly reacted quicker and with more accuracy than ordinary citizens. Correll says that police officers tend to "make very few mistakes...which is reassuring." And while this finding reassures the public that police are in fact well trained, persistent allegations of racial profiling by police such as the Maryland highway patrol case discussed earlier may be the result of conscious and intended prejudice (since their subconscious gut-reactions that the video game tests seems exemplary). The only answer to this kind of discriminatory racial profiling is better screening processes for police officers, an area that needs more attention and research.

Where to Go From Here: Online Resources Part 2

Acknowledging the web's mind boggling wealth of knowledge, this week I once again decided to further probe it for resources in order to provide another ten relevant sites to add to my linkroll. My intention in doing so is to proliferate and expand the exponentially growing interlinking connections that is web 2.0. My linkroll comprises of sites ranging from policy making government organizations to opinionated personal blogs, all with their own merits and impact, all relevant to issues I am interested in and discuss in this blog.

The first site I added for this week was the American Psychology and Law Society. The organization's goal is to advance the understanding of law and legal institutions through basic and applied psychological research, and for this, parallels the intent of Grey Matters. However, the actual website is somewhat limited in available information without membership. The site's student section is a selling point, offering resources concerning internships, fellowships, grants, research, clinical training, and more, yet the visual design of this section is unappealing, rough, and uninspired. The Association for Psychological Science website is a very well organized collection of some of the most interesting psychology articles, an exhaustive link section, and journal access. The site is easily navigable and incorporates descriptive visuals for many of the article topics. Crime Library's The Criminal Mind website is perhaps the most entertaining and enjoyable place to visit on my linkroll. The site would earn high marks in all criteria sections for the Webby Awards; the content communicates a large body of knowledge in an engaging easily accessible manner; the functionality is superb, integrating interactive quizzes based on crime stories with multiple chapters and quick loading despite ample eye candy. Although being associated with a television station, the site's overall experience leaves you enlightened and does not come off as transplanted material from television of magazine. Psychology Today is the magazine of the same name's website but it is by no means an electronic version of the magazine. Exceeding the Crime Library's level of interactivity, Psychology Today offers dozens of online tests from coping skills to IQ, with immediate feedback to facilitate an informative experience. One of the site's main purposes is to provide help and resources to those in need, which it does very well. All About Forensic Psychology is a toss up when it comes the quality of the site. While a comprehensive bank of information can be found here in a style and language accessible to the layperson, finding what you are looking for might be cumbersome. An unorganized but extensive list of topics can be found on the left side of the main page, and following any one of these links will lead you to good info fragmented by ugly advertising and poor layout. Despite these drawbacks, this site is worth exploring.

PsyBlog, Maintained by a freelance writer and psychology graduate student, has gained gained a lot of attention through its stylistic use of the post miniseries, such as the "7 sins of memory", which unfold as multiple posts over a week or so. The blog's influence is recognizable by its high technorati authority rating along with a four year archive. The Innocence Project's Innocence Blog deals almost exclusively with current news related to psychological research on the fallibility of eyewitness identification of which I posted on a few weeks back. The blog is updated daily and its authority is of the highest on the topic. Wer're Only Human is affiliated with the Association for Psychological Science and takes a casual approach to psychology concepts but is written very well with good flow. The posts focus on everyday applications of the field and consequently has some highly engaging things to share. My only critique of the site is that it is too blue in color. In The News is a blog written by a PH.D. about forensic psychology, criminology, and law. A forensic psychologist in profession, the author bases her posts on current events and articulates an opinion through peer reviewed research. Although a bit biased against the legal system and media, the content of this blog is too important and relevant to dismiss. The final website I added to my linkroll was one that does this sort of work for me. PsychSplash is a blog maintained by a PH.D. in clinical psychology who's passion for everything psychology overflows in the effort he puts into exploring the web for psychology related websites. The blog reviews a new site everyday and describes who its audience would be, the topics it concerns itself with, and the features the site contains. Besides being a great resource for anyone interested in psychology, the blog's visual design is playful and very appealing.

Crack Time: New Sentencing Guidlines May Free Thousands of Inmates

In the largest single act ever to reduce the sentences of federal prisoners, the U.S. Sentencing Commission has produced guidelines that took effect last Monday, potentially letting free more than 20,000 inmates. The commission, which sets the rules to guide federal judges, reduced recommended sentences for federal crack cocaine offenders last year and has now made those reductions retroactive. 1,600 inmates convicted of possession or distribution of the the drug are available for immediate release based on their less-dangerous status, but 18,000 more violent inmates will be available for release in following years.

Crack cocaine is the cheaper and less pure version of powdered cocaine, and was developed in the early 1980's. With its emergence, there was an increase in murders and other crimes associated with the drug; typical of the introduction period of any illegal drug as dealers compete for shares in the new market. Media coverage claimed an epidemic and soon Congress instated the Anti-Drug Abuse Act in 1986. The act aimed to curtail violence related to the sale of crack by imposing mandatory minimum sentences to arrests concerning the drug. Possession of five grams of crack cocaine (equal to about two packets of sugar and about the daily consumption of an addict) would result in no less than five years in prison. This statute was significant because it created a huge gap in punishment for crack versus powdered cocaine related offenses. The disparity in conviction criteria was not small; after the act was instated, a person must have been caught with one hundred times as much powdered cocaine to have received the same conviction as if caught with crack. In fact, crack cocaine is the only drug for which the first offense of simple possession can trigger the federal mandatory minimum sentence of five years. on the other hand, under the same circumstances powdered cocaine possession of any quantity is a misdemeanor offense punishable by a maximum of one year.

Much controversy surrounded the act, and continues to this day. Opponents of the regulations protest it as clandestine racism considering that about 85% of crack defendants in the U.S. are Black and only about 6% are White. Conversely, most powdered cocaine convictions, resulting in far more lenient sentences, involve Whites. Many advocates and organizations claim that the policy reflects one of our justice systems most blatant and unjust forms of institutional racism. The U.S. Sentencing Commission has since filled four special reports over the last two decades, specifically focusing on the crack vs. cocaine sentencing disparity, all of which until this past month have been ignored or held up by congress.

But it is not simply an issue of race when it comes to the sentencing disparity. Those supporting the more severe punishments associated with crack over powdered cocaine cite important differences between the two forms of the drug. The United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual 2D1.1(c) assigns the aforementioned 1:100 ratio between crack and powder cocaine offering five main reasons for the distinction: (1) crack is more addictive than powdered cocaine; (2) there is a greater relationship between crack and serious crimes than with other drugs; (3) crack has a more dangerous physiological effect than powdered cocaine; (4) young people are more prone to use crack than powdered cocaine; and (5) cracks affordable cost per dose leads to more widespread use.

But mainly opponents contest Congress's reasoning for the overwhelming disparity. They acknowledge some (research has shown that crack is not more addictive than powdered cocaine) of the distinctions as warranting more severe punishment, but denounce the hundred-fold quantity criteria as grossly excessive. With all of their work, the Sentencing Commission's recommendations only resulted in a 50% decrease in quantity regulation. Thus, 5 grams of crack is equivalent to 250 grams of cocaine instead of 500 grams, and sentences are only slightly reduced. Mandatory minimum sentences are still in effect for crack cocaine simple possession, meaning that even with small amounts and no proof of intent to sell, federal trafficking charges can be litigated. As such, low-level crack dealers and first-time offenders receive an average sentence of ten years and six months; which is 59% longer than the average sentence for rape and only 18% shorter than the average sentence for murder.

So while it seems disturbing that 20,000 criminals might be released from prison, the ones eligible now are only the least violent and least likely to commit another crime, and the release is not automatic. Each eligible prisoner's case must be reviewed and a judge must consent with the release. These prisoners therefore face a slow and expensive process of freeing themselves from the prejudiced system that incarcerated them for an excessive period of time. This is not to argue that criminals shouldn't be punished or that drugs shouldn't be illegal, but any government system purporting to advocate justice must do so in a just and egalitarian manner. If Congress is not convinced that the punishment of crack possession is too severe, then they should at least recognize the punishment for cocaine possession is by comparison, too lenient.

Crime and drugs do often come hand in hand, but law makers are clearly reluctant to recognize that substance abuse is an illness that can be treated. Substance Abuse Disorder is a psychological condition defined in the DSM-IV-TR, and has many treatment paradigms and significant rehabilitation potential. Yet in the late twentieth century, our justice system shifted away from policies of rehabilitation back to inflexible and unproductive principles of retribution. Too many people suffering from addiction are being incarcerated with violent criminals because we are quick to label drug users as morally flawed and hopeless. Considering the disparate conviction of crack cocaine use against Blacks, we must either acknowledge the institutional racism upholding this legal trend, or recognize a psychological susceptibility resulting from societal racism and oppression of the Black community.

Where to Go From Here: Online Resources

While I wish I could say that this blog holds all of the information there is to offer concerning psychology, I must concede that there are places on the internet that have far more to offer. Therefore, this week I probed the internet for pertinent resources of which I have added to the linkroll on the right side of my blog. I have striven to filter out the tangential and irrelevant content in an attempt to produce a list of resources of only the highest quality and authority based on the criteria of The Webby Awards along with Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy (IMSA) guidelines for blog evaluation assessment.

To start with the broad but highly authoritative, the information base and influence of the American Psychological Association is unsurpassed in this domain. APA's website can be used as a starting point for any endeavor into psychology of any discipline considering its adept structure in which you can start in the topic directory and proceed to narrow in on your area of interest with ease. A strong aggregation of psychology news and headlines is backed up with a wealth of literature and databases to further any scholarly pursuit. Psychology Matters, a site produced by the APA, organizes a multitude of psychological research studies that are directly relevant to daily life making it a considerably effective and efficient site for the kind of issues and news that this audience is interested in. Another official and authoritative website I included is that of the National Institute of Justice. Considering that the NIJ is a program devoted to the research, development, and evaluation of the U.S. Department of Justice, the site makes contains ample psychological research that is highly relevant to public policy. The site layout is very organized and utilizes branching subdirectories for almost every topic you click on making it very easy to hone in your search. Continuing with the theme, The National Institute of Mental Health is a good place to stop if you are interested in clinical research that has influenced public policy or government positions on mental health issues. The site is a good resource and its simplicity is a plus but as such, it lacks in visual appeal. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers website is a great place to check out if you are more concerned with the legal side of a psychological issue or legislative implications of current research. Most helpful here are the News & Issues along with the Federal Legislation sections of the site.

To move on to more exclusively psychology related content, PsychCentral is a excellent website with perhaps the most all-encompassing collection of resources from news and research to medication information along with a highly regarded blog, all in a easy to navigate package. An unceasingly updated site that was recognized by a Best of the Web-Blog award for its quality is Furious Seasons. The blog focuses on the state of mental health in the United States and contains one of the most prolific and expansive linkrolls available itself. Cognitive Daily is another eminent blog maintained by an acclaimed professor of psychology and her experienced writer husband. The blog reports daily on peer-reviewed psychological literature but in a language that anyone can understand. Another long-established blog is Mind Hacks. This blog caters to the curious mind who seeks a very current analysis of the neuroscience and psychology's most interesting discoveries and studies. The psychology section of Research Blogging is only one blog in a conglomeration of blogs of various topics all devoted to discussing and creating peer-reviewed research. Because of this designation and purpose, the site is scholarly yet entirely accessible as blog format. These ten websites are superlative in the realm of issues that Grey Matters is devoted to, and exploring them will lead to an education and understanding of the issues to a degree far greater than I can offer.

Pointing Fingers: Who is to Blame for the Northern Illinois University Tragedy

In the wake of the Northern Illinois University shooting, the blogosphere, along with every other form of news media, is abound with explanations as to how this sort of tragedy could have happened, again. Finger pointing is a favorite pastime of many fear-full and anxious Americans with the mic turned towards them. The usual suspects have been rounded up; gory video games, poor parenting, violent television and movies, antidepressants, the availability of guns, and the ever-feared evil youth all cited as responsible for the media-sensationalized school shootings during the last couple of decades. So for this week, I decided to explore two blog posts concerning the Stephen Kazmierczak (pictured to the left) NIU shootings and how psychology and its extended fields can play a role in understanding it all. The first article I examined and commented upon was one titled Northern Illinois Shooting: Anti-depressants And Violence, a post on the highly regarded mental health blog Furious Seasons written by Philip Dawdy. The Post examines the relationship between school shooting rampages such as Kazmierczak's and antidepressants. The second article appeared in The Huffington Post, under the title The Moviegoer: School Shootings, Violent Entertainment and Other FunnyGames. This Post was written by James Rocchi, a professional film critic and frequent contributor to multiple television networks and news websites. In his post Rocchi relates the NIU shooting American gun control policy and refutes the cliche attacks on the media. I have commented directly on the two authors' posts as well as a copied version below.

"Northern Illinois Shooting: Anti-depressants And Violence"
Comment:

Thank you writer of Furious Seasons for your intelligent and informed post.

It is clear that you, along with many other reporters, have elucidated an issue that clearly needs to be looked into further. Based on accounts made by yourself along with advocates such as the founder of ssristories.com, there clearly is a relationship between antidepressants and violence. But that correlation can not be considered a direct or causal relationship. The media's typically hysterical search for someone or something to blame, in the case of the NIU shooting, has lead to citing a rather weak correlation and not causation between antidepressants and violence (weak considering what behaviors or conditions one can more readily correlate with violence) that only sponsors fear of a good product.

SSRI's among other modern treatments for depression and anxiety provide a great deal of relief to the 15 million Americans that are treated by them, and it is not fair nor ethical to instill in them the lingering fear that their medication might incite in them a homicidal rampage. Years of clinical trials by pharmaceutical companies themselves, the FDA, NIMH, APA, and unbiased researchers have led to these drugs that clearly do more to alleviate debilitating psychological conditions than aggravate side effects. Your statement that improper use of antidepressants may be a "recipe for bad things" is entirely valid, and withdrawal from almost any drug can be dangerous, but to go from symptoms of agitation and unpredictability as quoted by Dr. Garland to linking the medications to murderous sprees seems irresponsible. I entirely agree that improper use and withdrawal from antidepressants needs more research, but pointing a condemning finger at the medication that was more likely keeping Kazmierczak's violent capabilities at bay, only creates unnecessary fear.

Furthermore, it is definitely not a "chicken-and-egg" relationship, as described in the New York Times article you cited; violence obviously preceded the advent of antidepressants. It is much more likely for an un-medicated individual with depression or anxiety to hurt themselves or others than a medicated one. As long as we are talking about correlation, studies have shown that as more antidepressants are prescribed, suicide rates go down. And that during the period between 1992 and 2006, in which SSRI prescriptions more than doubled, school-related violent crime has actually declined.

"The Moviegoer: School Shootings, Violent Entertainment and Other FunnyGames"
Comment:

Dear Mr. Rocchi

Thank you for your concise but comprehensive argument against our the constant condemnation of our "culture of violence". Considering that you did not grow up in the United States also gives you an important point of view on the exhausted topic of blaming all of our problems on the media and culture. You make a very valid point that American films are enjoyed equally across the globe, yet the alleged violence that they incite in viewers is not equally shared. It is true, our gun control policies along with inadequacies in the mental health system are to blame. But the NRA lobbyists and firearm supporters have too much of a stronghold in our policy making. Defenders of vague Second Amendment Constitutional rights allow guns to be bought and sold too easily, letting them fall into the hands of the mentally ill. The most recent case of this being the NIU tragedy. With such high rates of suicide among those diagnosed with depression, should a retailer be allowed to sell three handguns and a shotgun to an individual with such afflictions as Kazmierczak. Background checks have loopholes and basically anyone can bypass laws that restrict who can buy firearms through gun shows. The NIU shooting is especially scary because by most accounts, prior to February 14th, Kazmierczak did not show any outward signs of his impending violence. Considering that depression is a highly fatal illness combined with the danger that Kazmierczak went off his medication three weeks earlier, his psychiatrist could have taken precautions to avoid guns falling into his hands if we had better system in place. As you said, "we need better mental health funding in this country, so that the cracks people slip through are smaller." The Tarasoff warning is already in place, which makes it the duty of mental health professionals to protect and warn individuals in danger due to threats or the condition of their patient. Shouldn't we allow them to suggest to the authorities that maybe their patient should have his gun rights at least temporarily removed. You are entirely just in assuming that if Kazmierczak did not have such easy access to firearms, his violent episode might not have been nearly as tragic. It seems that the aggression and violence that results from mental illness is characterized by a lack of control of impulses, and clearly the personal firearm is a far-too-deadly and impulsive weapon to be allowed in the hands of those with a characteristic lack of control. Psychology should have a lot more to say about gun control.

Eyewitness Misidentification: DNA Evidence Sets Free another Inmate Imprisoned by the Fallibility of the Mind

After serving twenty six years in prison for a crime he did not commit, Rickey Johnson (pictured to the left) was told by a Louisiana judge on January 14th, 2008 that he was free to go. Mr. Johnson was arrested after a rape victim incorrectly identified him in a police photo lineup after which he was sentenced to life without parole. The prisoner's innocence was determined with forensic DNA testing; a technology not available at the time of the crime. The Innocence Project, which represented Johnson in the case, is a public policy reform group that works to absolve wrongly convicted inmates and fights for more reliable practices in the criminal justice system to avoid tragedies like that of their client. The case stands out as simply the most recent in a series of DNA exonerations, most of which stemming from misidentification. In fact, eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in 75% of the 216 convictions overturned through DNA testing to date. Johnson's wrongful conviction is an excellent example of the fallibility of memory recall by humans in certain situations. In the intense moments of a crime psychologists tell us that many things can interfere with awareness, attentiveness, and memory. Beginning with a surge of research in the 1970's, psychologists have been struggling to convince police, courts, and policy makers that they must exercise extreme caution with the procedures surrounding eyewitness identification. However, the leisurely adoption of statutes by only a handful of states demonstrates the peculiar reluctance to instate widespread reform or standardized practices of such an important legal process.

U.S. law concerning suggested eyewitness identification procedures is largely dictated by the Supreme Court's ruling in Manson v. Braithwaite (1977) and has not been revised by the Court the the subsequent 30+ years. Recent DNA exoneration cases have corroborated the warnings of years of psychological researcher by showing that mistaken eyewitness identification was the largest single factor contributing to the conviction of these innocent people. It is largely because eyewitness testimony can be persuasive evidence before a judge or jury that authorities are so resistant to make the process more stringent, yet strong scientific research has proven that eyewitness identification is often unreliable. According to Innocence Project, "the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound." Instead, eyewitness memory should be retrieved methodically and preserved carefully or it can be contaminated just like any other evidence. The most common area in which this evidence is contaminated is during sloppy or rushed suspect lineups or photo arrays implemented by the police.

In October of 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice released the first national guide for collecting and preserving eyewitness evidence as one of scientific psychology’s most dramatic and consequential contributions to national public policy. The guide was commissioned by U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, and consisted of a panel of experts, including psychologist Gary Wells, the world’s foremost authority on the psychology of eyewitness identification along with other leading psychologists in the area. The authors state that the guide, "is supported by social science research. During the past 20 years, research psychologists have produced a substantial body of findings regarding eyewitness evidence." They implemented psychologists' findings on suggestibility, authority figures, memory recall, and confidence malleability to produce an outline of best practices in order to, "obtain the most reliable and accurate information from eyewitnesses" and to make sure this evidence "is given the weight it deserves in legal proceedings." Additional pressure for guidelines was applied by psychologists through expert testimony that focused on deficiencies in the standardization of procedures used to collect the eyewitness evidence. DNA exoneration cases were particularly important in leading Reno to notice the eyewitness literature buzzing throughout psychology and to order the National Institute of Justice to coordinate the development of the guide for law enforcement. Yet as of February 6th of this year, state legislators are still just getting around to actual implementation in the form of mandated policy on a state by state basis.

What does the research suggest and the guide outline? Following are five highly simplified guidelines for identification procedures. Firstly, the police officer administering a photo or live lineup should be "blind", or unaware of who the suspect is (important so that the officer does not unknowingly influence the victim through body language or verbal cues). Secondly, the non-suspects (fillers) included in a lineup should fit the description of the perpetrator, and the eyewitness should not view multiple lineups with the same suspect (to protect from the tendency for the mind to favor that which stands out against others or is familiar). Also important, is that the eyewitness should be told that the perpetrator may or may not be in the lineup and that they should not look to the administrator for guidance (to prevent the unfamiliar setting and authoritative administrator from pressuring the witness into a decision if they are not sure). Immediately following the lineup procedure, it is advised that the eyewitness provide a level of confidence statement (much research has focused on wrongfully inflated confidence of witnesses based on positive feedback from administrators). Finally, the entire identification procedure should be videotaped and documented to prevent misconduct and ensure proper procedure (abuse of power is more likely if unchecked, and standardized and methodical evidence keeping prevents appeals and future problems).

Where we find ourselves, though, is looking back upon Rickey Johnson's case for motives behind the sloppy three-photo-array identification procedure that landed him in prison. With the national prison system filled past capacity and the court system bogged down and backed up with cases, if somebody will say that they saw a someone do it, a conviction will be easy. But the easy way is rarely the best way. It is hard to advocate for the rights of someone accused of a heinous crime, but we must remember that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, our society thrives on such principles of justice and freedom from persecution. Until recently however, the proof resulting from eyewitness identification was assumed reliable. But without the proper precautions and procedures, emotions and anxiety can interfere with an witness' memory of a crime and pressure can lead to hasty accusations. We must resist our urge to rush to conclusions as eyewitnesses because more often than we think, our mind will deceive us.