Forensic Social Science: Understanding and Preventing Wrongful Convictions
"White Paper" Guidelines & Grading Scheme
Social scientists have specialized knowledge that can be useful in reforming and improving legal policy. However, this knowledge will not be of any practical benefit unless we present a compelling and practical case for what we have to offer. One method by which scientists have presented their recommendations to the legal system is "white papers," which are used to educate lay readers and help relevant policy-makers make more informed decisions.
In the social sciences, these white papers include a critical analysis of the problem area (e.g., eyewitness identification/testimony, interrogations and false confessions), a comprehensive review of the relevant research, policy recommendations based on the scientific findings, and often a cost-benefit analysis of implementing their recommendations. In presenting white papers to the legal system, scientists can help influence policy change by not just pointing out flaws in the current system, but by offering concrete, empirically-suggested remedies.
For this project, you are asked to choose a topic area from among those covered in class, review the relevant research, and write a mini "white paper."
Although white papers generally review a very broad literature base, for this class, you should focus on a more specific issue within a literature area. First, choose a topic or problem addressed in this course that is of interest to you and that could benefit from social science insight (e.g., eyewitness identifications, juror decision-making). Then select a particular sub-topic or issue that you can research (e.g., lineup formats used in eyewitness identifications; judicial instructions in juror decision-making).
Next, read several articles on that topic, including, but not limited to, those obtained for your annotated bibliography. These articles can be obtained through PsycINFO, Google Scholar, or another database from the library website. (A good way to start is to select an article you enjoyed from class and look through its reference list, or do author searches to see what else they have published on the topic.) Think about what the studies tell us about the topic.
Do the data in these studies point to an appropriate procedural reform? For example, does one type of lineup format yield higher accuracy rates than another? Do jurors make better decisions when given one type of instruction vs. another? Then, come up with a recommendation to address the problem you identified, keeping in mind the logistics; pros and cons; and costs and benefits of implementing your recommendation.
Finally, you will write up an APA-style white paper based on your research. The final paper must contain at least 10 references to academic, peer-reviewed journals. The paper should contain several different types of information to help the reader understand why this issue needs to be addressed (i.e., What's the problem? Why should we care?), what social science research has to say about the issue, how you propose to improve the situation, and what potential roadblocks may hinder the implementation of your solution.
This paper will be worth 25% of your final grade and must be submitted via Isidore by the due date indicated on the syllabus.
NOTE: This paper should be written in APA 6 format (i.e., title page, header, citation style, etc.)
Use the levels of subheadings that are appropriate for your paper.
Example topic selection:
Mistaken eyewitness identifications are a major cause of wrongful conviction, and because social scientists know a lot about memory, they may be able to reduce this problem by modifying the testing procedure (i.e., the lineup) used in identifications.
In reviewing the literature, I have located several studies that show that a particular type of instruction given to eyewitnesses before they make their identifications may help reduce false identifications. Therefore, I recommend that the lineup administrators use this particular lineup instruction instead of the standard instruction. It seems like an easy and inexpensive reform to implement.
Draft:
You will also submit a draft of your paper before the final paper is due so that I can provide you with feedback and make sure you are on the right track. It must be submitted via Isidore by the due date indicated on the syllabus. This draft will be worth 15% of your final grade.
General Guidelines
• Provide an APA-style title page for your paper. Consult the Publication Manual and/or on-line resources for specific guidelines.
• Don't say that the results of any study "proved" something.
• Remember that there are no contractions (e.g. aren't, won't, don't) in scientific writing.
• Although there is no absolute minimum or maximum length set for your paper, be reasonable; say what needs to be said, and nothing more. A very rough guideline of appropriate length for the body (i.e., not including Appendices, etc.) of your paper is approximately 8-10 pages.
• Remember that everything must be double-spaced.
• Make sure that you attend to details, such as the running head, page numbering, etc.
• Do not refer to a study as an "experiment" unless it truly is. Similarly, don't say the results of a particular study indicate the something causes another unless that study was truly a controlled experiment.
References
Your completed paper must include a minimum of 10 different primary references from psychological sources. Only scientific, scholarly references (journal articles and books) will count toward the minimum of 10 references, but you may supplement with other sources if you wish (e.g., Innocence Project website).
American Psychological Association (APA) style is required throughout the paper, which includes all citations and referencing. Make sure that all sources listed at the end are cited at least once in the body of the paper, and that all sources cited in the paper are listed at the end.
If you would like to consult a social science white paper to get an idea for how they are written, I recommend these two articles:
Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2010). Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 3-38.
Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 603-647.