Approaches between psychology and law

Despite what was stated in the article in which the 8 differences between psychology and law were exposed, the reality is that from the beginning they have tried to make mutual approaches between both disciplines.

Despite his many divergent views, They are two disciplines condemned to be understood for the good of science and justice. Proof of this is that collaboration between jurists and psychologists worldwide is increasing.

Content

• Approaches between psychology and law
  • Divergences between psychology and law that, in the background, are not so much
    • Divergences in the superficial, convergences in the deep
  • Obvious approaches between psychology and law
  • Conclusions
  • References

Approaches between psychology and law

The question we ask ourselves is: do such different sciences house such very close views?

Divergences between psychology and law that, in the background, are not so much

Carson (1988), analyzes the following divergences made by Aubert (1963):

Scientists, such as psychologists, seek to predict future behavior. However, lawyers are interested in past behavior. The objection that arises is that, although it seems a clear distinction, in some cases it is not so much.

Thus, lawyers also have to try to predict judicial conduct and the ability to provide facts, among other issues.

Another divergent aspects is that Scientists seek to generalize, cover as many people as possible from an affirmation.

On the contrary, Lawyers focus exclusively on their clients and their individuality rather than on common characteristics.

Again, although true in regard to the professional practice of jurists in justice, in certain aspects lawyers make generalizations from their professional practice. Therefore, they are not so far from psychologists.

Divergences in the superficial, convergences in the deep

Another of the differences raised by Aubert (1963) is that Scientists perceive and work with grade issues, such as probability, mental disorder, risk, etc., while lawyers, however, dichotomize (yes vs. No, guilty vs. innocent, etc.).

In this sense, Carson (1988) points out that lawyers, in court, must try to label their clients as holders or not from a certain legal category to obtain a particular conclusion and compare the facts of their clients with categories and pre -existing concepts.

However, outside the Justice Chamber, lawyers can recognize the great dissemination and variety of categories, as well as existing overlapping concepts. Precisely, like psychologists.

On the other hand, Scientists prove hypotheses from detailed criteria and examined to establish a causal relationship between two phenomena.

However, Lawyers have their own rules of causation and do not need to prove their conclusions. Scientists try to make descriptive reports but again, outside the Justice Chamber, the lawyer may also be interested in such descriptive reports in order to avoid events such as breach of a contract or the risk assessment.

Obvious approaches between psychology and law

On the other hand, psychology and law share their commitment to empirical and quantification.

In fact, the decision on a judicial case must be based on evidence and facts. So that The observable can lead to clarify the un observable And, from this, people who did not witness the facts will perform inferences and consequently make decisions.

The same is that psychology does, Both disciplines are based on empirical to build their hypotheses. Without a doubt, this point of convergence is fundamental.

For its part, Garrido (1994) considers that it is not true that the only relationship between psychology and law is its common material object, behavior. Your contact is more intimate:

• The two disciplines have the same conception of human nature and their behavior
• Although each discipline has its mission, the two share a univocal conception of the processes that govern human behavior, the difference being that the law implies or intuits them and psychology places them in their point of analysis
• The positive law starts from a conception of human nature and a forecast of human behavior and legislates accordingly.
• The true foundation of relationships between Psychology and Law lies in the fact that many of the positive laws have their reason for being, their theoretical justification in the cases of how human nature works.

Conclusions

Analysis such as those carried out above show that the differences established between psychology and law are not as resounding as they could be understood based on a first reading, being possible that a more detained examination shows that the lines that mark the differences between the two fields are not as defined as one could think.

All of the above, seems to point towards a possible overcoming of the barriers that separate both disciplines, In favor of accentuating current and potential common elements that exist between psychology and law.

References

• COLEMAN, J.C., Butcher, j.N. And Carson, R.C. (1988). Psychology of abnormality and modern life. Mexico: Trillas.
• Garcia, e., Lacalle, j. & Pérez-Marqués, to. (2006). Legal-Forense psychology and oral trials in criminal matters: perspectives, risks and challenges in the case of current Mexico, general approaches. Just Semper loquitur, 50, 23-32.
• Garrido, e. (1994). Relations between psychology and law. In Sobral, J., Arce, r. & Prieto, to. LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY MANUAL. Mexico: Paidós.
• Quintero, l. TO. M., & López, E. G. (2010). Legal psychology: task and development. Diversitas: Perspectives in Psychology, 6(2), 237-256.