York University · Faculty of Health · Department of Psychology
PSYC 3310 3.0 · Psychology and Law
Current offering: Section B · Fall 2026
View the full syllabus ↗Current course syllabus
Fall 2026 · Revised September 7, 2026 · 46 pages
Open the full syllabus (PDF)Course eClass ↗Preview the syllabus on this page
Open the PDF directly if the preview is unavailable.
Understanding justice through psychology
How do people make decisions in the justice system—and how can psychological research help us understand those decisions? This course follows the Canadian justice system from its foundations through policing, courts, and corrections. Students examine public trust, memory, bias, risk, responsibility, and the ways evidence can inform policy and practice.
I teach PSYC 3310 as a flipped course. Each teaching week includes one hour of online, pre-recorded video and a two-hour in-person experiential lecture. Students watch the videos and complete the readings before class. In class, we work through the decisions facing people in the justice system.
The online part of the flipped course
Inside the recorded lectures
I use rendered versions of myself and short film cutaways to introduce the lecture topics. Browse the title slides below, then watch the Week 1 excerpt to see how a cutaway fits into the explanation.
Lecture preview: Who makes the rules?
Week 1: Foundations of Justice · 3 minutes 31 seconds
In this excerpt, I use a hockey game to explain what Parliament, the executive, and the judiciary do, and how they check one another’s power. A cutaway to the “constitutional peasants” scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail takes up the same question: where does political authority come from?
How the course is designed
A journey through the justice system
I designed PSYC 3310 to follow a case through the Canadian justice system. We begin with how laws are made and the ethical responsibilities of psychologists, then move into policing and investigation. The course continues through bail and the courtroom before turning to sentencing, risk assessment, and parole. Following that sequence helps students see how a decision at one stage can shape the questions faced at the next.
Students watch recorded lectures and complete the readings before class. We use class time to work through the decisions: designing a police service in MAKE-A-COP, then examining a fictional criminal case in Court in the Act! Polls, roleplay, and discussion give students occasions to explain a choice and reconsider it in light of the evidence. The Capstone Policy Letter asks them to turn research on a justice issue into a recommendation for change.
The Week 1 reading, Overview of the Adult Criminal Justice System, gives students a map of the institutions and decisions along the way. The course takes a linear route through those topics; the chart also shows where actual cases can branch or end before reaching trial or sentencing.
Assigned reading: Statistics Canada and Department of Justice Canada, 2018. The publisher has archived this overview; it is included here as the course’s introductory map.
Read the accessible text version
Source: Statistics Canada and Department of Justice Canada, Overview of the Adult Criminal Justice System, June 27, 2018.
- 01 · Weeks 1–2Foundations & ethicsLaw, institutions, and the psychologist’s responsibilities.
- 02 · Weeks 3, 4 & 6Policing & investigationPolice decisions, interviewing, and memory.
- 03 · Weeks 7–8Before the trialBail, jury selection, and pretrial publicity.
- 04 · Weeks 9–12In the courtroomWitnesses, experts, criminal responsibility, and jury deliberation.
- 05 · Week 13Sentencing & paroleRisk, rehabilitation, and decisions about release.
Course themes & activities
The course moves through the stages of the justice system. Each week pairs a lecture theme and psychological focus with activities that put those ideas into practice.
Based on the syllabus overview on page 17, with dates from the course schedule. On a small screen, swipe across the table to see every column.
| Week & date | System stage | Lecture theme & psychological focus | Experiential exercises |
|---|---|---|---|
| Week 1 Sep 15 2026 | Foundations | Foundations of Justice Legitimacy, procedural justice, public trust, legal consciousness | Q&A & “What is Justice?”, Values, Introduction to MAKE-A-COP. |
| Week 2 Sep 22 2026 | Ethical Boundaries | Psychologists in the System: Rules, Ethics & Legal Boundaries Charter rights, TCPS2, CPA Code, dual roles in forensic contexts | Q&A / Advice for Policy Letter & “Red Flag or Routine?” applied ethics game. Begin building your service for MAKE-A-COP. |
| Week 3 Sep 29 2026 | Police Institutions | Policing in Canada: Systems, Roles & Recruitment Structure, oversight, legitimacy, public perceptions | MAKE-A-COP: Recruitment-pathway mapping |
| Week 4 Oct 06 2026 | Police Decision-Making | Discretion, Use‑of‑Force, & Cognitive Bias Rapid appraisal, stress, implicit bias, decision heuristics | MAKE-A-COP: Use-of-force scenarios + IMIM mapping & s. 25 justification notes |
| Week 5 Oct 13 2026 | — | Reading Week No class | — |
| Week 6 Oct 20 2026 | Police Evidence Collection | Interviewing Witnesses & Suspects: Memory, Influence & Suggestibility Memory retrieval principles; contamination; voluntariness (R. v. Oickle) | MAKE-A-COP: Choose your interviewing method (iClicker) + PEACE plan drafting lab |
| Week 7 Oct 27 2026 | Pre-Trial Decisions | The Accused Enters: Bail, Risk & the Weight of Guilt Risk assessment, heuristics, Gladue, legal meaning of guilt | Court in the Act!: Bail triage lab, Gladue bench note, Interpreting Static-99R |
| Week 8 Nov 03 2026 | Jury Formation | Choosing Justice: Jury Selection & Pretrial Publicity Voir dire, media bias, group psychology, impartiality | Court in the Act!: Media bias lab, Choose Your own Voir Dire, Ethical Scenario “Just Got Picked” |
| Week 9 Nov 10 2026 | Trial – Witness Testimony | Eyewitnesses in Court: Memory, Confidence & Contamination Lineup science, confidence, trauma memory, wrongful conviction | Court in the Act!: Witness Testimony + Cross-Examination |
| Week 10 Nov 17 2026 | Trial – Expert Testimony | Experts on the Stand: Bias, Science & Admissibility Cognitive bias, admissibility (Mohan/Abbey), forensic quality | Court in the Act!: Competing expert reports—admit or exclude + bias-mapping checklist |
| Week 11 Nov 24 2026 | Fitness & Responsibility | Mental Disorder & Criminal Responsibility NCRMD, fitness to stand trial, stigma, forensic psychiatry | Q&A / Advice for policy letter & “Are they responsible?” vignettes + FIT-R scoring drill; Review Board disposition role-play |
| Week 12 Dec 01 2026 | Jury Deliberation | The Verdict: Decision-Making Under Doubt Beyond a reasonable doubt (Lifchus); heuristics, persuasion, and moral reasoning; procedural safeguards & deliberation protocols; group dynamics (herding, stubbornness) | Court in the Act!: Jury vote, deliberation poll, and verdict reflection + unanimity vs. majority simulation |
| Week 13 Dec 08 2026 | Corrections & Public Safety | Sentencing & Risk: Justice After the Verdict s. 718 purposes & principles; Gladue at sentencing and Indigenous Justice Strategy context; risk tools (Static-99R, VRS-SO)—use & limits; RNR vs. GLM; parole decision psychology; Dangerous Offender regime | Court in the Act: Sentencing submission + post verdict debrief + risk communication writeup (five level RNR) |
Learning by doing
In class, students draw on the videos and readings to explain a decision to their peers. We use the discussion to examine that reasoning and consider other interpretations.
MAKE-A-COP
Weeks 3, 4, and 6. Teams create and operate a fictional Canadian police service, weighing priorities and using course evidence to make decisions about policing.
Court in the Act!
Weeks 7–10, 12, and 13. Students take on courtroom roles, examine evidence, present arguments, and consider how psychological research relates to legal decisions.
Capstone Policy Letter
Students develop a feasible policy recommendation for a Canadian justice-system decision-maker. They use an idea pitch and a complete draft to develop and revise the argument before submitting the final letter.
What students work toward
- Critically assess research findings and their potential implications for the justice system.
- Communicate research and informed conclusions to a public audience.
- Reflect on personal attitudes toward justice and consider other perspectives.
- Explore questions at the intersection of psychology and law that are personally meaningful.
- Discuss justice systems with peers and use empirical evidence to support recommendations.
Assessment designed for learning
I designed the assessments around the course’s learning outcomes. Students need to judge what psychological research can tell us about a justice decision, then explain their conclusions to a public audience. They also need to examine their own assumptions. The in-class activities give them practice with these abilities; the assessments ask them to demonstrate what they can do. This is the principle of constructive alignment (Biggs, 1996).
Applying evidence in simulations 50%
In MAKE-A-COP and Court in the Act!, students use course research to make policing and courtroom decisions. The assessment combines credit for good-faith participation with multiple-choice checks of comprehension. Students explain their choices and compare them with their peers’ responses during polls and debriefs. Those differences give us a practical question to work through: what evidence supports a decision, and why did someone else reach a different conclusion?
A multiple-choice assessment pathway is available in place of the experiential block. All students complete the Capstone Policy Letter.
Building a policy recommendation 50%
For the Capstone Policy Letter, students recommend a feasible action to a real Canadian justice-system decision-maker. They have two pages to make their case. The task asks them to decide which evidence matters and explain what it supports in language their intended reader can use. I assess both the reasoning behind the recommendation and how clearly students communicate it.
Students start with an Idea Pitch (5%) to identify the problem, intended decision-maker, and initial evidence. They then submit a Complete Draft (15%), including a targeted self-critique and a plan for improvement. For the Final Letter (30%), students revise their work in response to relevant feedback.
Building mastery through feedback and revision
I use staged, criterion-referenced assessment for the capstone: students develop their letter against published criteria, with feedback before the final submission. The draft and final letter use the same rubric, including marks for self-critique at the draft stage and responsiveness to feedback in the final version.
Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006) describe how feedback can help students judge their own work and decide how to improve it. Clear criteria and self-assessment are part of that process. I have built both into the letter assignment: students use the rubric to critique their draft, plan revisions, and then put that plan into practice in the final letter.
The current syllabus and eClass contain the full grading rules, assignment instructions, and submission deadlines.
Continue learning
Current training offerings
Explore my current professional training, including workshops on risk assessment and risk communication.