Keynotes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Biography
Professor Alfred Allan qualified in law and psychology and is a registered psychologist with clinical and forensic endorsements in Australia and is currently professor of psychology at Edith Cowan University in Perth. He has taught law, psychology and professional ethics in Law, Medical and Psychology Schools in South Africa and Australia. Professor Allan currently teaches ethics and professional issues to postgraduate psychology students and primarily does research in the areas of Law and ethics in mental health and Correctional behaviour (apology, forgiving and reconciliation). He is a director at large and the chair of the Standing Committee on Ethics of the International Association for Applied Psychology (IAAP) and a Fellow of the Australian Psychological Society (APS). He is a past president of the Psychology and Law Division of the IAAP, Australian and New Zealand Association for Psychiatry, Psychology and Law and a past chair of the APS College of Forensic Psychologists, the Ethics Committee of the APS, and of the Working Group that reviewed the Australian Psychological Society's Code of Ethics. He is on the editorial committee of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law and the editorial board of Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine and Ethics and Behavior.
|
Abstract
Divided loyalties: Challenges for psychologists working in psychology and law .
All psychologists must act in the interest of society and its members and sometimes face situations where the interests of society and the people they work with diverge. They often find the process of reconciling their obligations towards society and these people difficult and stressful. Psychologists working in the psychology and law area encounter these conflicts more frequently than most other psychologists because they directly or indirectly assist law (defined broadly to include the legal system) in the execution of its functions. Law, in turn, serves as society’s formal mechanism for making and enforcing rules and arbitrating disputes and it possesses coercive powers to execute these functions. Psychologists closely aligned with law may therefore find it is difficult to reconcile their loyalties to individuals and society and this can lead to moral distress. Their distress may heighten if they and/or others question the morality of aspects of the law they help administer. In this paper I intend to identify and explore some of the situations where psychologists working in the psychology and law area face competing responsibilities to society and individuals or groups. I will then proceed to examine how these psychologists could try to manage tension that flows from these situations.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Biography
Becky Milne is a Professor of Forensic Psychology at the Institute of Criminal Justice Studies and is Director of the Centre of Forensic Interviewing housed at the University of Portsmouth. She is also Deputy Chair of the International Investigative Interviewing Research Group and a member of Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats. She works closely with the police and other criminal justice organisations (in the UK and abroad), through the training of the Enhanced Cognitive Interview, Advanced Interviewing Practices (Tier 3 and 5), Witness/Suspect Interview Advising, the interviewing of vulnerable groups, and providing case advice as an expert advisor. Becky is a member of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Investigative Interviewing Strategic Steering Group and was part of a writing team who developed the 2007 version of the Achieving Best Evidence document, National guidelines for interviewing vulnerable groups. She is a chartered forensic psychologist and scientist and Associate Fellow of the British Psychological Society. She is an Associate Editor of the International Journal of Police Science and Management. Becky was given the Tom Williamson award for her outstanding achievements in the field of investigative interviewing by ACPO in April 2009.
|
Abstract
Let them be heard : Enabling communication and recall of forensic interviewees.
Investigative interviewing is at the heart of any investigation and thus is the root of achieving justice in society. Thus one of the most important tools in an investigator’s tool box is the interview. As a result, over the past twenty years practitioners and researchers have sought, and in some countries have substantially succeeded, in developing procedures that improve the quality of interviews of witnesses, victims, and suspects of crime. This body of work has seen successful outcomes of the interplay between academic research and practical policing. This keynote will aim to outline the developments in this field and will examine the challenges that have faced researchers trying to find solutions to real world problems. The following questions will be deliberated including: What are the best ways to interview vulnerable groups (e.g. people with ASD)? How can we tailor best practice guidance to specific circumstances (e.g. front-line information gathering and the use of Body Worn Videos)? How do we transfer interview training into the field? Can everybody interview to a good standard? Finally the keynote will pose where future research should concentrate.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Biography
Dr. Otgaar’s research concentrates on developmental changes in memory from childhood to adulthood. Specifically, he is interested in factors that relate to the development of memory illusions. He collaborates with research groups in the United Kingdom, Belgium, Canada, Sweden, and North America. Furthermore, he has received may awards for his research and teaching. Current studies focus on precursors of children’s and adults’ false memories, adaptive memory, delayed disclosure of sexual abuse, and interviewing children.
Dr. Otgaar has disseminated his work extensively and had presented his work to psychologists, students, and legal practitioners. His research often attracts national as international media attention. Also, he has often cooperated in legal cases involving child witnesses. He is also a member of several interdisciplinary workgroups such as the Dutch Expert group for Special Sexual Abuse cases and the Committee of Testing and Advice of the Dutch Legal Expert Database. Besides his work at the Forensic Psychology section, Maastricht University, he also works as a visiting fellow at the Center of Memory and Law, City University London.
|
Abstract
“Why should we care about memories in the courtroom?” - Legal and theoretical issues related to memory in the legal arena.
Why is knowledge about memory so relevant in court? Although legal psychologists can appreciate the importance of this knowledge in court, many (legal) psychologists and legal professionals will not fully grasp why in most criminal cases, knowledge concerning memory is key. In this keynote, I will review some new findings about memory from our lab. Specifically, I will talk about issues as false denials, nonbelieved memories, developmental trends in false memories, and the (positive) consequences of false memories. I will show the importance of these findings for the legal field. Most importantly, I will make the case that in order to have a complete idea of the relevance of memory in court, legal psychologists should start research from both theory and practice and continuously switch to one of the two during their research career.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Biography |
Abstract
Identity radicalization : sources, figures, outcome
|
 |
Daniel Derivois, Ph.D, is a professor in clinical Psychology and Psychopathology at Bourgogne Franche-Comté University (UBFC) and director of the Masters' course research program “Clinical Psychopathology, medical psychology and psychotherapies”. Graduated in Educational Sciences, clinical psychologist in Child Protection, his clinical and research activities are essentially about trauma, resilience and violence concerning adolescents and children and about inter- and trans-cultural topics. He is working on developping a Clinical Globality.
|
In the globalized world of today, several hypotheses are possible about the potential meanings of radicalization in the social media and geopolitical clinical space. Certain assumptions focus on the "short time" of terrorist events or shortcuts like "suburban youth ',' immigrants' or 'binational'. I propose the hypothesis that the radicalization phenomenon is the sign of an identity radicalization that originates in the "long time" of the Western and non-Western world.
The identity radicalization not only falls identity vulnerabilities at individual and collective levels, but also the war of territories between the social and human sciences called to think these identity vulnerabilities in this changing world. Identity radicalization of social and human sciences makes impossible to grasp the complexity of identity transformations of populations in the globalized world. The identity radicalization indicates a lack of transitionality between Western and non-Western world, but also across disciplines – lack of interdisciplinarity. It constitutes a challenge for the criminological clinical approach.
By taking on some figures of this identity radicalization (violence suffered / acted out, migrant crisis, fragmentation of disciplines at the university, deprivation of nationality ...), this paper aims to identify some of its ideological sources (Western binary thought, ethnocentrism, imperialism) and to outline ways to overcome it. The model " Globality as a clinical posture" will be used as a basis for discussion.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Biography |
Abstract
«Alone we go faster, together we go further !» Development of a new practice model in France focussed on risk-based corrections and desistance
|
 |
Astrid Hirschelmann is psychologist with a PhD. and professoral thesis (habil.) in psycho-criminology. She is born in Bonn (Germany) and has completed her studies in psychology at the University of Toulouse. Since 2000 she is lecturer and since 2012, co-director of the Interdisciplinary Centre for the Analysis of Human and Social Processes at the University of Rennes 2.
Moreover, since 2000 she is judicial expert at the court and she leads a master for psycho-criminology and victimology, which offers, since 2012, an international training program. She published 43 international articles and book chapters, especially about institutional and methodological problems in dealing with violence, analysis of criminogenic and victimogenic processes, the articulation of judicial and psychological logics, etc.
Her researches focus on best practice models concerning risk evaluation and prevention, violence and adolescence and the treatment of mental disorders associated with violent acts. Actually, she coordinates, in collaboaration with D. Lafortune (scool of criminology, Montreal), a national research, funded by the French direction of the penitentiary administration, about the implementation of new and international methods for the French probation services. She has worked for several years to provide fundamentals and guidelines for a systematical and pratically orientated implementation of scientifc principles that have proven to be effective in the daily interaction with offenders.
|
“Alone we go faster, together we go further!” That’s how a practitioner conclude about the measures taken today by the French prison administration to equip probation services with new interdisciplinary and standardized methods to assess risk and criminogenic need factors of offenders with the aim of making more efficient the process of rehabilitation.
A research conducted in 2014 by Hirschelmann et al. shows the general distrust towards Justice, the barrier of professional secrecy and the incoherence or inconsistency of information concerning the possible improvements of offenders. In fact, the number of professionals who are confronted with the requirements of evaluation is now as high as the failed attempts to establish a shared tool. Since 2005, there has been an impressive number of reports about dangerousness in France together with a series of changes to the law. The dominant approach is to identify determinant personality factors, but this leads to divergent expert opinions, and so would appear to be fundamentally dependent on the subjective view of the individual assessor. For policymakers expert opinions are not always clearly justified or intelligible, and can frequently result in over- or else under-evaluation of future risks and vulnerabilities.
This presentation raises questions about how an individual risk/need assessment should be conducted giving information on the risk of relapse and the risk factors and showing the need for intervention in a case-concept. This concept must be based on an offence hypothesis that enables a clear understanding of the case by which the intensity of treatment and care, its subjects and change goals are defined.
|
|
