Description
Part One for the Statistics class (using the book for statistics only)
Each discussion forum allows students to identify the most challenging or confusing concept from the current module to discuss with others in a helpful, mutually supportive manner.
Students are expected to identify the concept from this week’s chapter that they find the most challenging and write a brief explanation of 1) why they find the concept challenging or confusing and 2) the concept in the student’s own words after researching the concept in the textbook and online. Student must cite all online sources and include a working hyperlink to the source to receive credit for the post. At least one online source must be used for all muddiest point explanations. Quoting or plagiarizing from the textbook and/or online sources will not receive credit.
Each initial discussion post should be at least 8-12 sentences in length, should be well-organized, should explain the concept, and should include citations so classmates can follow the links to learn more about
PART TWO FOR THE FORENSIC SCIENCE CLASS(USING BOOK FOR FORENSIC SCIENCE) YOU CAN CHOOSE TO RESERCH FROM THE BOOK OR RE-WORD THIS ENTIRE PARARAGH IN YOUR OWN WORDS
What is the significance of Jenkins v. United States to forensic psychology?
Jenkins v. United States was a case in 1962 on appeal where it was determined that a psychologist could provide expert testimony on mental health disorders in criminal cases. Expert testimony was now not limited to a psychiatrist with a medical degree. A psychologist, as long as he or she was well trained, could provide testimony on mental health issues but also on other areas where they might be conducting research that pertains to the criminal justice system such as eye witness testimony, psychological testing and other areas of importance(Bartol & Bartol, 2022). Jenkins v. United States established that psychologists have legal status as expert witnesses in all types of court cases (Perlin, 1977).
In reading an older article that came out roughly ten years after the ruling about the importance of Jenkins v. United Statesregarding the status of psychologists in court cases, it was noted that at the time, psychologists were viewed as inferior expert witnesses even though they spent years receiving educational and hands-on training in their field (Perlin, 1977). It is interesting to note that many psychologists conducted more research on relevant topics of concern to the criminal justice system and yet, their work was often disregarded in comparison to that of the work of psychiatrist. It was frustrating to psychologists who were both conducting research but also providing direct client services and had first-rate knowledge of mental health disorders on par with psychiatrists (Perlin, 1977). The ruling finally gave relevance and credibility to forensic psychologists.
References
Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. M. (2022). Introduction to forensic psychology research and application. SAGE Publications, Inc.
PART THREE FOR THE FORENSIC SCIENCE CLASS(USING BOOK FOR FORENSIC SCIENCE) YOU CAN CHOOSE TO RESERCH FROM THE BOOK OR RE-WORD THIS ENTIRE PARARAGH IN YOUR OWN WORDS
- Briefly explain the difference between the Frye general acceptance standard and the Daubert standard for evaluating expert testimony.
Both the Frye standard and the Daubert standard are legal tests that are used to decide whether or not expert testimony can be used in court. The Frye standard looks at how well the scientific community accepts a scientific theory or method. (Bartol & Bartol, 2022) In contrast, the Daubert standard looks at how reliable and helpful the expert’s testimony is, and allows expert testimony to be accepted more flexibly. (Bartol & Bartol, 2022)
References
Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. M. (2022). In Introduction to forensic psychology: Research and application (6th ed.). essay, Sage.
