Objection: Psychology!

The Psychology of False Confessions: Why Innocent People Admit Guilt

Send us a text [https://www.buzzsprout.com/twilio/text_messages/2468525/open_sms] Join host Lazaro in this very short episode of Objection: Psychology! where we discuss False Confessions. False Confessions are a puzzling and tragic phenomenon where innocent individuals admit to crimes they didn't committ. This episode explores the psychological mechanisms that go behind false confessions, how interrogation tactics contribute to them, and what this means for the justice system as a whole! We dive into key research, real-life cases, and the interplay between stress, compliance and memory distortion. More episodes are coming soon, reach out if you have any suggestions or feedback at my email below! Stay curious, stay critical, and as always... Objection sustained! Email: lazarofernandez@usf.edu

Juvenile Justice: Are Kids Criminals or Just Developing Brains?

Send us a text [https://www.buzzsprout.com/twilio/text_messages/2468525/open_sms] When a teenager commits a violent crime, should we treat them like adults, or acknowledge the science that says their brains are not fully developed? In this episode of Objection: Psychology!, Lazaro dives into the clash between the developmental psychology behind teenage brains and the criminal justice systems.  From Supreme Court cases like Roper vs. Simmons and Miller vs. Alabama to cutting-edge neuroscience, we examine why teens act they way they do, whether "adult time for juvenile crime" makes sense, and how psychological research is reshaping what justice looks like for young offenders.  In this episode we feature expert quotes, hard data, and moral questions, all to answer this question: Should we punish kids or give them a second chance? Key Topics * Teenage brain development * Juvenile Justice reform * Supreme Court rulings on youth sentencing * Rehabilitation vs Retribution * Psychology's role in shaping criminal law Listen now and challenge your knowledge on Juvenile crime! Objection sustained. Email: lazarofernandez@usf.edu

False Memories & Eyewitness Testimony: When the Mind Lies

Send us a text [https://www.buzzsprout.com/twilio/text_messages/2468525/open_sms] How reliable is your memory, like really? In this episode of Objection: Psychology!, host Lazaro takes you into the unsettling world of false memories and the serious consequences that it has in the courtroom. Using the real-life case of Ronald Cotton's wrongful conviction, we explore how confident eyewitnesses can often send innocent people to prison We will break down the psychology of false memories, the role of suggestive questioning, and how trauma can distort recollection. We will also dive into recovered memory therapy and why courts are being increasingly wary of eyewitness testimony, Whether you're a true crime enthusiast, a psychology student like myself, or just curious about how our minds work under pressure, this episode will change how you think about memory and justice.  Key Topics Covered * Ronald Cotton’s misidentification case * The science of false memories * Eyewitness testimony and wrongful convictions * Legal controversies around recovered memory therapy * Psychological terms defined with sources We will dive next week into the neuroscience of psychopathy, exploring how brain imaging is used and misused in court and pose the question: can science really predict criminal intent? Tune in now, and remember; stay curious, stay critical, and as always... objection sustained!  We are available on ALL platforms.  Email: lazarofernandez@usf.edu

The Guilty Mind: Can We Really Read Criminal Intent?

Send us a text [https://www.buzzsprout.com/twilio/text_messages/2468525/open_sms] In today’s episode, we’re diving deep into one of the most complex and debated concepts in criminal law: mens rea, or as otherwise abbreviated, the "guilty mind" that determines a person’s intent in committing a crime. But what happens when someone’s intent isn’t so clear? How do we account for the brain’s role in shaping criminal behavior? We’ll explore how neuroscience, particularly fMRI scans, is challenging our understanding of criminal intent. Can we really see a guilty mind in brain scans, or are we simply looking at patterns that don’t tell the whole story? To explore this, we’ll discuss groundbreaking research on brain regions involved in decision-making and impulse control, and what that means for someone’s ability to understand the consequences of their actions including testimonies of the most capable psychologists and researchers in the field.  Furthermore, we’ll break down the infamous case of Ethan Couch, the “affluenza” teen, who claimed his privileged upbringing left him unable to understand the consequences of his actions after killing four people while driving drunk. We’ll ask whether psychology and neuroscience can explain—or excuse—behavior, and what it says about the intersection of privilege, responsibility, and the law. Can we really know someone’s intent? And if we can, how should that shape our approach to justice? This episode tackles these tough questions head-on. **Next week on Objection: Psychology!—we’ll be exploring the role of memory in criminal defense. How reliable is eyewitness testimony, and can memory manipulation be used in court to sway verdicts? Join us as we dive into the science of memory, its limitations, and how it shapes the legal system. Stay curious, stay critical, and as always—objection sustained! Email: lazarofernandez@usf.edu

Insanity, or Just an Excuse?

Send us a text [https://www.buzzsprout.com/twilio/text_messages/2468525/open_sms] Is the insanity defense a necessary protection for the mentally ill? Or is it a clever legal loophole used by defense attorneys? In this episode, Host Lazaro unpacks one of the most controversial and misunderstood defenses in the criminal justice system. From the roots of the M'Naughten Rule to famous cases such as Andrea Yates and John Hinckley Jr, in this episode we will explore what it really means to be "not guilty by reason of insanity" In this episode you will learn the psychological and legal standards behind the plea, how forensic experts determine mental state, and why public opinion often clashes with courtroom decisions. We will also tackle some uncomfortable ethical questions such as who gets to decide if someone deserves punishment or treatment? Whether you're a psychology student, law nerd, or just curious about all the intricates where the mind and law collide, this episode is for you. Tune in and ask yourself: Can justice and compassion coexist in a courtroom? Email: lazarofernandez@usf.edu