Overview
Forensic Psychology is the area of behavioural science concerned with psychology and the law. In this unit, you will discuss how psychological principles and practices can be applied to topics such as police recruitment and procedures, suspect interviewing, false confessions, courtroom practices and witness reliability, understanding criminal behaviour, mental competency, and justice. You will also discuss general psychological principles as they relate to the legal systems within Australia and other countries as well as specific case studies.
Details
Pre-requisites or Co-requisites
Minimum of 24 credit points of Psychology units for CA10, CQ01 and CQ91; Minimum of 24 credit points of Level 2 Psychology units for CF59; Minimum of 30 credit points of Level 2 Psychology units for CC43
Important note: Students enrolled in a subsequent unit who failed their pre-requisite unit, should drop the subsequent unit before the census date or within 10 working days of Fail grade notification. Students who do not drop the unit in this timeframe cannot later drop the unit without academic and financial liability. See details in the Assessment Policy and Procedure (Higher Education Coursework).
Offerings For Term 2 - 2017
Attendance Requirements
All on-campus students are expected to attend scheduled classes – in some units, these classes are identified as a mandatory (pass/fail) component and attendance is compulsory. International students, on a student visa, must maintain a full time study load and meet both attendance and academic progress requirements in each study period (satisfactory attendance for International students is defined as maintaining at least an 80% attendance record).
Recommended Student Time Commitment
Each 6-credit Undergraduate unit at CQUniversity requires an overall time commitment of an average of 12.5 hours of study per week, making a total of 150 hours for the unit.
Class Timetable
Assessment Overview
Assessment Grading
This is a graded unit: your overall grade will be calculated from the marks or grades for each assessment task, based on the relative weightings shown in the table above. You must obtain an overall mark for the unit of at least 50%, or an overall grade of ‘pass’ in order to pass the unit. If any ‘pass/fail’ tasks are shown in the table above they must also be completed successfully (‘pass’ grade). You must also meet any minimum mark requirements specified for a particular assessment task, as detailed in the ‘assessment task’ section (note that in some instances, the minimum mark for a task may be greater than 50%). Consult the University’s Grades and Results Policy for more details of interim results and final grades.
All University policies are available on the CQUniversity Policy site.
You may wish to view these policies:
- Grades and Results Policy
- Assessment Policy and Procedure (Higher Education Coursework)
- Review of Grade Procedure
- Student Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure
- Monitoring Academic Progress (MAP) Policy and Procedure – Domestic Students
- Monitoring Academic Progress (MAP) Policy and Procedure – International Students
- Student Refund and Credit Balance Policy and Procedure
- Student Feedback – Compliments and Complaints Policy and Procedure
- Information and Communications Technology Acceptable Use Policy and Procedure
This list is not an exhaustive list of all University policies. The full list of University policies are available on the CQUniversity Policy site.
Feedback, Recommendations and Responses
Every unit is reviewed for enhancement each year. At the most recent review, the following staff and student feedback items were identified and recommendations were made.
Feedback from Course evaluation feedback
Students enjoyed the collaborative nature of assessments.
Maintain forum assessments.
- Understand the philosophical similarities and differences underlying the disciplines of psychology and the legal system
- Have a knowledge of the accomplishments of legal psychologists
- Be aware of the particular challenges facing psychologists interacting with the legal system
- Have further developed your research and writing skills.
Alignment of Assessment Tasks to Learning Outcomes
| Assessment Tasks | Learning Outcomes | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| 1 - Group Discussion - 15% | ||||
| 2 - Written Assessment - 45% | ||||
| 3 - Examination - 40% | ||||
Alignment of Graduate Attributes to Learning Outcomes
| Graduate Attributes | Learning Outcomes | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| 1 - Communication | ||||
| 2 - Problem Solving | ||||
| 3 - Critical Thinking | ||||
| 4 - Information Literacy | ||||
| 5 - Team Work | ||||
| 6 - Information Technology Competence | ||||
| 7 - Cross Cultural Competence | ||||
| 8 - Ethical practice | ||||
| 9 - Social Innovation | ||||
| 10 - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultures | ||||
Alignment of Assessment Tasks to Graduate Attributes
| Assessment Tasks | Graduate Attributes | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
| 1 - Group Discussion - 15% | ||||||||||
| 2 - Written Assessment - 45% | ||||||||||
| 3 - Examination - 40% | ||||||||||
Textbooks
Legal Psychology in Australia
(2015)
Authors: Nolan, M. & Goodman-Delahunty, J.
Thomson Reuters
Sydney Sydney , NSW , Australia
ISBN: 9780455223889
Binding: Paperback
IT Resources
- CQUniversity Student Email
- Internet
- Unit Website (Moodle)
All submissions for this unit must use the referencing style: American Psychological Association 6th Edition (APA 6th edition)
For further information, see the Assessment Tasks.
k.j.burke@cqu.edu.au
Module/Topic
Introduction to forensic psychology
(“It depends on what you mean.”)
Chapter
Nolan & Goodman-Delahunty (2015).
pp. 1-28.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Offender profiling
(“Well, Watson, what do you make of it?”)
Chapter
Nolan & Goodman-Delahunty (2015).
pp.38-48.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Psychic detectives - activity and online discussion (details on Moodle)
Module/Topic
Forensic science: oxymoron
(“The FBI stands by their conclusion of a 100 percent positive identification.”)
Chapter
Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E., & Kukucka, J. (2013). The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(1), 42-52.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Eyewitness testimony
(“Did you see any glass?”)
Chapter
Nolan & Goodman-Delahunty (2015).
Chapter 2.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Children as witnesses
(“She’s a sharp girl, that.”)
Chapter
Nolan & Goodman-Delahunty (2015).
pp. 232-246
Supplementary material can also be found at pp. 424-432 & 441-451.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Bizarre questions - activity and online discussion (details on Moodle)
Offender profiling Due: Week 5 Monday (7 Aug 2017) 9:00 am AEST
Module/Topic
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
(“There’s just one more thing.”)
Chapter
Nolan & Goodman-Delahunty (2015).
Chapter 3.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Detecting truth and deception
(“Interrogators may try to confuse the brother.”)Chapter
Nolan & Goodman-Delahunty (2015).
Chapter 4.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Mental disorder and the law
(“Call the police. I think I killed him.”)
Chapter
Nolan & Goodman-Delahunty (2015).
Chapter 5.
Events and Submissions/Topic
The case of Karen Brown - activity and online discussion (details on Moodle)
Bizarre questions assignment due.
How not to talk to children Due: Week 8 Monday (4 Sept 2017) 9:00 am AEST
Module/Topic
Sexual harassment
(“It doesn’t happen here.”)
Chapter
Funnell, N. (2016a, September 15). If universities want to know about sexual assault, they're doing it wrong. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/15/if-universities-want-to-know-about-campus-sexual-assault-theyre-doing-it-wrong
Funnell, N. (2016b, October 10). Full list of universities exposed by sexual assault investigation. News.Com.au. Retrieved from http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/true-stories/full-list-of-universities-exposed-by-sexual-assault-investigation/news-story/f7c39dcacce8a9c839bc8b881172173bEvents and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Hate crimes
(“41 shots.”)
Chapter
Walters, M.A., Brown, R. & Wiedlitzka, S. (2016). Causes and motivations of Hate Crimes. Equality and Human Rights Commission Research report 102. Manchester: Equality and Human Rights Commission.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Jury decision making
(“A better instrument could scarcely be imagined….”)
Chapter
Nolan & Goodman-Delahunty (2015).
Chapter 7
Events and Submissions/Topic
The case of Paul Ingram - activity and online discussion (details on Moodle)
Module/Topic
Miscarriages of justice
(“Bring back the death penalty.”)
Chapter
Weathered, L. (2013). Wrongful convictions in Australia. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 80(4), 1391-1414.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Exam in exam weeks: details to be advised.
1 Group Discussion
This is a group assignment. You will be assigned into a study group in Week 2. Each group will be asked to identify a single case (or sequence of cases involving the same offender/offenders), to collect and pool information on that case, and to then individually produce a short summary of that case.
Using journal articles, or books, and media reports, identify a solved case in which criminal offender profiling was used. Answer the following questions about that case:
1. Identify the case (offence type, location, year, etc)
2. What characteristics of the offender were identified? (e.g., race, age, etc).
3. Was the profile accurate? Which characteristics of the offender were accurately or inaccurately identified?
4. Was the profile useful in the investigation? Why/why not?
Your report, in its entirety, should be submitted on maximum of two A4 pages. The exact format is up to each student (within groups differences in approach are permitted), with some possible options including: a poster, a Wikipedia-style page, a newspaper-style layout (e.g., multiple columns).
Week 5 Monday (7 Aug 2017) 9:00 am AEST
Upload written report to Moodle
Week 7 Friday (1 Sept 2017)
Feedback will be provided via Moodle
Assignment will be marked according to the Rubric on Moodle.
Marks available for each section of the report are as follows:
Case summary (out of 20)
Summary of the offender profile (out of 20)
Assessing the accuracy of the profile (out of 20)
Impact of the profile on the investigation (out of 20)
Presentation (out of 20)
- Understand the philosophical similarities and differences underlying the disciplines of psychology and the legal system
- Have further developed your research and writing skills.
- Communication
- Critical Thinking
- Information Technology Competence
- Ethical practice
2 Written Assessment
This assignment is based on an original study by Hughes and Grieve (1980) which attempted to show how children will try to make sense of any question, no matter how strange it may be. Children, aged 5 and 7, were asked "bizarre" or "conceptually ill-formed" questions like, "Is milk bigger than water?", and "Is red heavier than yellow?" Although these questions were apparently meaningless, the children would typically give answers. A similar related study was also carried out by Waterman, Blades and Spencer (2001).
The assignment requires you to conduct two interviews (with either a child and an adult, or two children) featuring a series of “bizarre” questions. You will then write a brief report (1500 words maximum) based on those interviews. The report should follow the conventions of a psychological report (Abstract, Introduction, Method, Results, Discussion, References, Appendix).
Instructions
1. Read the articles Hughes and Grieve (1980) and Waterman et al. (2001).
2. Based on your reading, create two original “bizarre” questions. Add these to the list below to create a total of eight questions.
- Q1. Is milk bigger than water? Why?
- Q2. What do feet eat for breakfast? Why?
- Q3. Is red heavier than yellow? Why?
- Q4. One day there were two flies crawling up a wall. Which fly got to the top first? Why?
- Q5 Is a jumper angrier than a tree? Why?
- Q6. One day there were two people standing at a bus-stop. When the bus came along, who got on first? Why?
- Q7. INSERT YOUR OWN QUESTION HERE
- Q8. INSERT YOUR OWN QUESTION HERE
3. Identify two family members or friends (the person must be someone known to you) and ask them to participate in an interview study (tips for conducting the interviewing will be posted on Moodle).
4. Ask the series of 8 questions, recording the answers.
5. Once the questions are completed, thank the person interviewed and explain that the study was about how people are (usually) able to find meaning and give coherent reasoned answers to what are essentially meaningless questions.
References
Hughes M. and Grieve R. (1980) On asking children bizarre questions. First Language, 1, 149-60.
Waterman, A., Blades, M. and Spencer, C. (2001) Is a jumper angrier than a tree? The Psychologist,14 (9), 474-477.
Week 8 Monday (4 Sept 2017) 9:00 am AEST
Week 10 Friday (22 Sept 2017)
Feedback will be provided via Moodle
Assignment will be marked according to the Rubric on Moodle.
Marks available for each section of the report are as follows:
Abstract (out of 10)
Introduction (out of 25)
Method (out of 15)
Results (out of 15)
Discussion (out of 25)
References (out of 5)
Appendix (out of 5)
- Understand the philosophical similarities and differences underlying the disciplines of psychology and the legal system
- Be aware of the particular challenges facing psychologists interacting with the legal system
- Have further developed your research and writing skills.
- Communication
- Critical Thinking
- Information Literacy
- Ethical practice
Examination
Dictionary - non-electronic, concise, direct translation only (dictionary must not contain any notes or comments).
As a CQUniversity student you are expected to act honestly in all aspects of your academic work.
Any assessable work undertaken or submitted for review or assessment must be your own work. Assessable work is any type of work you do to meet the assessment requirements in the unit, including draft work submitted for review and feedback and final work to be assessed.
When you use the ideas, words or data of others in your assessment, you must thoroughly and clearly acknowledge the source of this information by using the correct referencing style for your unit. Using others’ work without proper acknowledgement may be considered a form of intellectual dishonesty.
Participating honestly, respectfully, responsibly, and fairly in your university study ensures the CQUniversity qualification you earn will be valued as a true indication of your individual academic achievement and will continue to receive the respect and recognition it deserves.
As a student, you are responsible for reading and following CQUniversity’s policies, including the Student Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure. This policy sets out CQUniversity’s expectations of you to act with integrity, examples of academic integrity breaches to avoid, the processes used to address alleged breaches of academic integrity, and potential penalties.
What is a breach of academic integrity?
A breach of academic integrity includes but is not limited to plagiarism, self-plagiarism, collusion, cheating, contract cheating, and academic misconduct. The Student Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure defines what these terms mean and gives examples.
Why is academic integrity important?
A breach of academic integrity may result in one or more penalties, including suspension or even expulsion from the University. It can also have negative implications for student visas and future enrolment at CQUniversity or elsewhere. Students who engage in contract cheating also risk being blackmailed by contract cheating services.
Where can I get assistance?
For academic advice and guidance, the Academic Learning Centre (ALC) can support you in becoming confident in completing assessments with integrity and of high standard.
What can you do to act with integrity?
