Following earlier efforts by psychologists to address legal issues, psychology and law became a field of study in the 1960s, though that originating concern has lessened over time.
However, it was expected that only a medical doctor would have the expertise to assess and diagnose an individual with incompetency to stand trial or accept a sentence.
The benefit of evidence-based practices helps ensure that bias and interpersonal connections do not influence whom law enforcement views as a threat to community safety.
To understand false confessions, a psychologist should be familiar with research on decision making, compliance, obedience, persuasion, and other forms of social influence.
Like other professors, legal psychologists generally conduct and publish empirical research, teach various classes, and mentor graduate and undergraduate students.
Academics and researchers make up a significant amount of the psychologists involved today with applying psychology to legal contexts.
The application of psychological knowledge and principles of evidence-based care are significant to maintaining fairness and integrity across the criminal justice system.
The American Psychological Association has provided briefs concerning mental illness, intellectual or physical disability, and other factors.
A psychologist working in public policy might suggest laws or help to evaluate a new legal practice (e.g., eyewitness lineups).
It can be problematic if both sides have psychological witnesses, jurors may have the daunting task of assessing difficult scientific information.
Legal psychologists have also aided significantly in the creation of new knowledge and tools to combat the weaknesses of eyewitness recollection.
One of the earliest experiments on eyewitness reliability was conducted in March 1893 J. McKeen Cattell posted questions to fifty-six of his students at Columbia University.
Many details of crimes are obtained by interviewing witnesses, some of whom might testify in court, providing their account of the event into official evidence.
Eyewitness testimony and identification of an accused is often a salient piece of evidence which unduly influences the opinions of the jury.
As a result, incorrect or false eyewitness testimony has been found to be one of the most significant influences in the decision-making process among jurors.
[3] As a result of these findings, legal psychology researchers committed to creating and sharing evidence-based methods to promote best practices and lower the risk of a false eyewitness statement.
In 1998, Wells et al., published an article of guidelines on the best methods collecting and using eyewitness testimony while protecting the integrity of the criminal justice system.
As more research in an area is published the strength and utility of procedures and outcomes is able to be re-evaluated to allow for continual improvements to the criminal justice system.