PSYC 3530 1st Edition Lecture 2 Chapter 2I. The Legal System: Issues, Structure, and PlayersThe Adversarial SystemI. Used in the U.SII. Exhibits, evidence, and witnesses are assembled by representatives (e.g., attorneys) of each side to convince the fact finder that their side’s viewpoint is the truthful one.III. In a jury trial, choosing what evidence to present is decided by those involved in the litigation and their attorneys (judges rarely call witnesses or introduce evidence)IV. Contrasts with the inquisitional approach:a. Used in Europe (but not in Great Britain)b. Judge has more control over proceedings (e.g., judge questions witnesses and presents evidence)c. The two sides do not have separate witnessesi. The witnesses testify for the court, and the opposing parties are not allowed to prepare the witnesses before the trial.V. No system is perfecta. You have to look at the pros & cons of eachVI. Criticism:a. A competitive atmosphere that can distort the truthi. Where does the truth come out?ii. If you are so focused on winning, are you that focused on telling all the truth?VII. Benefits:a. Adversarial systems have been shown to lead to less biased decisions that were more likely to be seen as fair by the parties in disputeb. Participants have plenty of opportunities to present their version of the facts so that they feel they have been treated fairlyi. Being able to plead your case is a big thing1. You can present your side fully and this is seen as more fair evenif it doesn’t go your wayLegality versus MoralityThese notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.I. Laws are designed to specify precisely what conduct is illegal (often referred to as black letter law). But do these laws always correspond to people’s sense of right and wrong?a. For example, the topic of euthanasia highlights the inconsistency between legality and many people’s perceptions of what is moral, ethical, and just. II. Legislators and scholars have argued for centuries about whether or not the law should be consistent with citizen’s sense of moralityIII. Recently, researchers have considered whether the principles in the Model Penal Code are compatible with citizens’ intuitions about justice and legality (a majority of states base their criminal laws on the Model Penal Code)IV. Attempted Crimes and the Concept of Intention in Law and Psychologya. The Model Penal Code says that attempts should be punished in the same way ascompleted crimes (intention is important)b. Intention is essentiali. Even if you don’t commit a crime, if you intent to, that is very important.ii. If we know you intended to commit a crime we will stop you before you can do it and punishment will be implementediii. If we know the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, do we as a society have a responsibility to deal with the people that commit crimes?1. Should we treat attempted crimes criminally?V. Darley, Sanderson, and LaMantia (1996) found that people do not accept the view that intent to commit an act is the moral equivalent of actually doing it. VI. Psychologists have studied how people assign causes, including intentions, to the behavior of othersVII. Attribution theory is relevant herea. Attributions tend to vary along three dimensionsi. Internality- whether we explain the cause of an event as due to something internal to a person or to something that exists in the environment1. Do we explain the crime because of something specific to that individual or due to something externally or in the environmentii. Stability- whether we see the cause of a behavior as enduring or temporary1. A tiger doesn’t change its stripesiii. Globalness- whether we see the cause as specific to a limited situation or applicable to all situations 1. Is this situation going to be universal or not?iv. An individual who makes internal, stable, global attributions about an act of misconduct will see an offender as more culpable and more deserving of punishment than a person who offers external, unstable, specific explanations for the same act. 1. If we see their misconduct is due to stable traits, and they affect every aspect of a person’s life, we are more likely to see them as more culpable. (If it wasn’t caused by something external)v. When making inferences about what caused another person’s behavior – especially behavior with negative consequences – we tend to attribute the cause to stable factors that are internal to the personvi. But when our own actions lead to negative outcomes, we are more likely to blame the external environment for the outcome1. If someone is late you blame it on them but if you’re late you blame it on something externalb. Consequences of Citizen-Code Disagreementsi. For the law to have any authority, it must be consistent with people’s shared sense of morality. When consistency is lacking, citizens may feel alienation from authority and become less likely to comply with laws theyperceive as illegitimate.ii. Disagreements between the law and what’s moraliii. If we feel the law is not just, then we won’t follow itWhat is Justice?I. Definitions of justice have changes throughout historyII. In the Old Testament and in Homer’s The Iliad, justice meant something like revengeIII. By the time of the Golden Age of Athens in the fifth century B.C.E., the concept of justicecame to be more about achievement of the well-being of individualsa. From revenge to the well-being of individualsDistributive and Procedural Justice I. Distributive Justicea. A persons will be more accepting of decisions and more likely to believe that disputes have been resolved appropriately if the outcomes seem just or distributed equitablyb. If a person feels a dispute was just  justice was doneII. Procedural Justicea. If individuals view the procedures of dispute resolution or decision making as fair,then they will view the outcome as just, regardless of whether it favors them or notb. If people see a dispute procedure as fair they view the outcome as just, whether it favors them or notCommonsense JusticeI. “Commonsense justice” refers to ordinary citizens’ basic notions of what is just and faira. Ordinary citizen’s ideas of what is just II. Researchers have found evidence that the “black letter law” on the books may be at odds with community sentimentIII. Three discrepancies between