(Part 2) Best books about forensic psychology according to redditors

Jump to the top 20

We found 63 Reddit comments discussing the best books about forensic psychology. We ranked the 30 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.

Next page

Top Reddit comments about Popular Forensic Psychology:

u/Z0MBGiEF · 15 pointsr/bestof

For those of you interested, I believe the OP was referring to the Crime Classification Handbook

u/Sadistic_Sponge · 13 pointsr/AskSocialScience

Your best shot is to read a book on the topic. My personal favorites are:

  1. Interviews in Qualitative Research by King and Horrocks

  2. For a briefer overview, see the chapter in Becoming Qualitative Researchers

    3) Learning from Strangers by Weiss is also a great introduction


    There is really no shortage of resources on the topic- there are also mountains of journal articles covering the topic as well.
u/ayeroger · 5 pointsr/forensics

Here are links to a few books that I've used and found helpful during my first year of Forensics:

u/Parapraxia · 3 pointsr/news

So did you actually watch it, and consider the evidence, or just dismiss it on a whim because their names weren't familiar to you?

G. ROBERT BLAKEY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Robert_Blakey



MICHAEL HAAG (Firearms Expert, one the most well-respected shooting scene and ballistics experts in the world)
http://www.amazon.ca/Shooting-Incident-Reconstruction-Michael-Haag/dp/0123822416/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1419021692&sr=1-1

u/ninereeds314 · 3 pointsr/unitedkingdom

52% to me says "known not to work in any shape or form". A test that 100% always gives you the wrong result from a choice of two is a test that 100% always gives you the correct result just by flipping it over. 52% is, as near as makes no difference, meaningless - a coin-toss. If the result from the test is unrelated to what it's meant to test (or if you need bad science to claim otherwise) that test simply doesn't work.

And for anything that measures stress, it should be obvious that it's a bad indicator of lying.

There are many ways to cause an autonomic stress response. One is to make someone feel accused. Control questions like "what is your name?" are unlikely to make someone feel accused, but when someone knows s/he is being investigated because of being under suspicion, any question relevant to that could feel like an accusation - irrespective of guilt or innocence.

So the results of these tests will depend on personality and circumstances - e.g. has the person been repeatedly accused of things recently, or is the person already near or past his/her limits (e.g. due to unemployment).

And at least one "personality" trait makes it easy to beat a lie detector test. Sociopaths don't feel guilt, and don't get the related stress response. To make a sociopath fail a lie detector test, you basically need to do things that would make anyone fail the same test irrespective of guilt - keep them disoriented, take away any sense of control they have, make aggressive threats and accusations, etc.

It is possible to detect lying, but it's far from easy. Experienced police are no better at it than everyone else despite what they believe, and people in general believe they are good at spotting liars, but are actually dreadful. The only exceptions are specially trained. It requires paying attention to a lot of non-verbals at once - particularly "micro-gestures" which most people don't consciously spot at all. And the key thing isn't to determine if someone is stressed, but if someone is self-monitoring - taking fractionally too long to answer.

Source - various studies as described and summarized in this book. Warning - I haven't read the second edition and it's a long while since I read the first - I've tried to avoid going into detail because of the chance of getting those details wrong.

BTW - outside the first few pages, that book is pretty boring. The reason - other than the quick up-front summary of conclusions, the science - methods and results of studies - is always going to be boring.

And that's the problem. People love easy justifications for jumping to conclusions. Reality isn't anywhere near so easy or fun.

u/TommyUmami · 1 pointr/politics

Philosophy PHD, nice! Good on you, bet you love Westworld asking all that stuff about "free will"! I digress, haha.

>"But I’m not asking about what we actually do; I’m asking about what we may or should do, morally, and why. So, do you ever think that torture could be morally permissible? If so, or not, then why? I lean “not,” and it looks like you do too. I’m just curious about the reasons someone with your background might give for this belief, and what you might say against those who find torture occasionally permissible."

Great question! Torture is and never will be morally permissible because torture at is core is prolonged suffering of an human/animal, for no reason other than revenge and power. It is the act of causing callous, aggravated harm to designed to degrade and cause pain to a person who will say anthing to make the pain stop.

Morally/Ethically it is wrong. It causes harm on multiple levels: Mentally damages the torturer, Creates enemies of the Society and harms political capital, Physically and Mentally scars a human and doesn't work. (Great book of modern techniques show that talking is still the number one go to technique, https://www.amazon.com/Effective-Interviewing-Interrogation-Techniques-Third/dp/0123819865)

Ethically compare torture to standard ethics in medical testing. If you test on animals, you still cannot cause undue/unjust pain on them. Even stricter for human testing.

Now with torture morally, if you torture you lose all of the benefits of having the high road. You just deemed that it is okay for humans to suffer for uncredible information. So not only are you hurting someone, your hurting them for lies. That's contradictory to why you want to do torture in the first place if it for information!

Okay, maybe you're cool and decide to do it for false repentance? Thats not morally correct either. You inflicted pain for someone to admit something you wanted to hear: at best it's coercion! At worse, well, you just proved that applying pain gets you answers and okayed it for your boss to use it on you, thus sealing future pain if he chooses too!

Never ever use toture. Ever.

What we may, should and do is conversation. You have tos availible too you at a Sociological and Psychological level to convince/enable a person to give you information you've requested. I can, deceive, coerce, omit what I know, imply I know more, socratic question, diversion, disabling and a whole bunch of other neat things to get you to talk. I build a relationship and outplay you mentally. Hell, most people want to tell you things, little inside secrets, improve their current status. Even in psychology people want to be liked so you know who is in the better status position by who's little movements or gestures emulate who.

Plus there's tells. Maybe they flip their eyes or look quickly.

Modern interrogation is applying asymmetrical knowledge of game theory, psychology, sociology and authority vs their personal pride/hubris and mental faculties.

Why would You morally torture a man, when basic human decency and letting him make mistakes is so much morally right and easier?

u/Con96 · 1 pointr/slavelabour

Forensic Anthropology: Current Methods and Practice - Angi Christensen

https://www.amazon.com/Forensic-Anthropology-Current-Methods-Practice/dp/0124186718

$5 PayPal

​

Edit: No Longer Needed

u/bunnylover726 · 1 pointr/CatastrophicFailure

I did a report on our history of understanding of metal fatigue in commercial aviation during undergrad. This book by George Bibel was one that I relied on heavily for the section I wrote on United 232 for anyone who's interested in digging in even further.

u/khafra · 0 pointsr/reddit.com

Actually, going by the book, an interview is the search for intelligence; interrogation is what you do when you're pretty sure you've got your guy and you're going for a confession.