REMARKS BY PRESIDENT McALEESE AT THE OPENING OF THE INTERNATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND LAW CONFERENCE
REMARKS BY PRESIDENT McALEESE AT THE OPENING OF THE INTERNATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND LAW CONFERENCE TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN
Céad míle fáilte romhaibh go léir. Tá áthas an domhain orm go bhfuil mé anseo libh inniu.
Professor Farrington, Professor Ogloff. Honourable Judges, Ladies and Gentlemen.
I am delighted to be here with you today to officially open this Conference and I would like to thank my old friend David Carson, Chair of the Organising Committee, for his very kind invitation. You are all most welcome to Dublin, and I hope that your stay here will be both productive and enjoyable.
Some of you may know that the theme for my Presidency is ‘Building Bridges’. Little did I know, when I chose it, that it would include building bridges between the disciplines of psychology and law. Let alone on an international scale! However I am very pleased to do so. Particularly as you have chosen such an appropriate city as Dublin for your Conference.
The breadth and depth of topics to be considered at this Conference clearly demonstrates how the study of psychology and law has blossomed in recent years. The old stereotype, that it was all about eyewitnesses and memory - occasionally about juries - has been shown to be too limited for present day needs. Although we shouldn’t, perhaps, totally ignore its value in relation to juries, particularly if you go along with the view of Abraham Lincoln that:
‘A jury too frequently has at least one member more ready to hang the panel than to hang the traitor.’
But I think recent studies have demonstrated that we should set our sights higher – that the scope for an inter-disciplinary approach is far broader than had previously been imagined. To continue my bridge analogy, if those old days were represented by the Ha’penny Bridge - which you may know is a narrow pedestrian bridge that crosses the River Liffey not far from this College – then the present state of psychology and law may be better represented by O’Connell Bridge, which also crosses the Liffey. The point to note about O’Connell Bridge is that it is wider than it is long. It therefore allows for a far more productive and varied level of exchange between one side and the other.
That can only be of benefit to both disciplines. And indeed the expansion of interest in pooling knowledge and ideas, exemplified by the numbers of papers and delegates at this Conference, must be applauded. If the full potential of that approach is to be realised, I suggest that a number of challenges lie ahead.
First - Internationalism. Is the international character and potential of psychology and law being realised? While we must always be mindful of the significance of different cultures and goals, we should also acknowledge that different legal systems, laws, procedures and practices provide both lawyers and behavioural scientists with a rich and varied source of insight, experience and information from which to learn. We do not all need to use the same bridge to cross the river, especially at rush hour – and even more especially in Dublin. We should be open to drawing in new ideas, new applications, to consider fresh directions, to refuse arbitrary limits on intellectual exploration, to explore the fresh fields that an inter-disciplinary and cross-cultural outlook can offer us.
This Conference has representation from all five continents. Some countries are establishing their psychology and law associations. Hopefully we will all look for the wisdom that comes from insight and experience, whether negative or positive, outside, as well as within, our own countries. We can always learn from others. I note, for example, that you have symposia on developments in restorative justice, whose origins have been traced to the Maoris of New Zealand. And many of you will, today, be debating the respective merits of investigatory and adversarial trial procedures.
Second. Has the psychology-law bridge been designed for one or for two-way traffic? It is an inter-disciplinary subject. But this Conference, like comparable Conferences, is dominated by contributions from psychologists. The proportion of lawyers attending - and I am sure you are particularly gratified by the number of judges at this Conference -is growing. But more could and should be done to involve lawyers. As someone who has both practised and taught law, I know only too well how conservative and narrowly-focused that profession can be. Even those starting out on the career can quickly become caught up in ‘how it has always been’, or ‘what is appropriate’. In professional practice both psychologists and lawyers must, quite rightly, work with the existing law and practices of their country. But law is also about finding better ways of investigating, deciding about and responding to crime, about better ways of examining witnesses, demonstrating proof, making judgements. Psychology can contribute much to this process. But we need to have two-way traffic, for both sides to engage fully in the debate. Can more be done to ensure this? I note that some of you will be discussing the potential for psychology to contribute to legislative law reform. That, surely, is an important way forward.
Third. Are the interests and needs of practitioners, as well as academics and researchers, being addressed? A number of police services, for example, have adopted ideas from research on the cognitive interview and offender profiling. They have been open to fresh thinking. There is much interest at this Conference for example, for penologists and educationalists, on issues to do with the prevention of early delinquency. Could more be done to ensure that the potential for the application of the research and insights is made obvious? A bridge should lead somewhere.
These, Ladies and Gentlemen, are a few of the challenges for psychology and law. I am sure there are many more. Where professional boundaries meet is often a place where walls are built – high walls which obscure the view each profession has of the other. The walls so often demarcate territory into which the other does not stray. It takes a certain professional humility to be willing to look over the wall. It takes a certain professional generosity to create pathways across the wall. That is what this Conference is engaged in – an open declaration of war on the professional vanity which impedes productive sharing – an exciting showcasing of the possibilities opened by professional humility and generosity.
I congratulate you on your openness. I hope you will leave this Conference refreshed, recommitted to your own vocation and with a wider understanding of the vocation of others, with many new friends made, many new shared memories – and much food for future thought and action. I trust you will have a good Conference and I am sure that you will find Dublin the most enjoyable of cities.
Go n-eirí go geal libh.