Jump to content

Talk:Legal psychology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New Revision


It's about time this article gets a substantial revision. I'll try to build on what is here and also make the distinction between legal psychology and forensic psychology more explicit. I welcome any comments. -Nicktalk 00:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could go in more detail about stuff, but I think for now I'm going to make stylistic edits. I don't know much about forensic psychology except that it is part witchcraft or something, and I don't know what kind of jobs are available in public policy--just that legal psychologists use them. I could also add more specific issues in legal psychology, such as eyewitness memory, but I think those work best in their own entries.

Old Stuff


I've never heard of James Oggloff, but it seems improbable that an obvious field as the crossover between law and psy was established in such an article. Verification please? Radiant! 11:55, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

James Ogloff is a noted psychologist and specifically, legal psychologist. While I am not familiar with the article this refers to, it is probable that a loose definition of legal psychology was given in such a (presumably) review article. I daresay that the article did not necessarily "establish" legal psychology, and I take offense to the mention of the field being so blasely "obvious." Legal psychology is a field which takes basic social and cognitive theories and principles and applies them to issues in the legal system such as eyewitness memory, criminal and civil jury decision-making, investigations and interviewing, just to name a few. Most notably, legal psychologists have been involved in areas such as wrongful convictions and actual innocence cases, jury and trial consulting, as well as Department of Justice guidelines on eyewitness identification. --

I've slightly expanded the article to clarify that, as the commenter above noted, Ogloff's article was a review article, not a claim to invent the field. I think this merits removing the "disputed" tag.

Psychological jurisprudence


Regarding the recent addition of psychological jurisprudence, could someone (i.e., the person who added it) explain the difference between legal psychology and psychological jurisprudence? More to the point, wouldn't those who promote psychological jurisprudence be legal psychologists to begin with? I just don't see the reason to mention PJ as a separate sub-area within psychology and law. (I see it as just one of many themes that run within psych and law research.) -Nicktalk 01:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal psychology focuses on the kind of applied research described in this article, essentially aimed at improving the legal system's ability to do its job more efficiently. In contast, psychological jurisprudence shares with other forms of jurisprudence (e.g., feminist, Marxist, strict constructionist) the goal of changing what it is the legal system tries to do in the first place. Empirical data may or may not be central to this effort, which relies more on psychologists' philosophical and political priorities about what the law should seek to accomplish. One important and controversial form of psychological jurisprudence is therapeutic jurisprudence; another, less influential, is the psychological jurisprudence of Gary B. Melton, which aims to alter the law so that human dignity is a central goal.

Just as many legal psychologists are also clinically focused, some are adherents of psychological jurisprudence as well. As noted in the removed citation, it is common to list all three as part of the field of psychology and law (which should have its own entry, since that is the term most commonly used in research and teaching). Psychological jurisprudence would be linked to more general topics in jurisprudence, but is a distinctly psychological effort. 18:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Fox


Is there anyone besides Dennis Fox who has much to say about this topic? Why not provide some links to academic institutions that offer Legal Psychology as a field of specialization and give a degree in it? --Mattisse 14:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one citing Dennis Fox. There is already a link to a list of such schools. -Nicktalk 16:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the link of schools that offer legal psychology programs it may be helpful for students interested in legal psychology to have a list of prominent scholars in experimental legal psychology. It may also be interesting to have links to some specific research that has been published in different subareas of legal psychology.

Alimosser61 (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Legal psychology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]