Pub Date : 2022-02-16DOI: 10.1080/1068316X.2022.2037593
Amanda Pickering, N. Blagden, K. Slade
ABSTRACT Prison-based violence and self-harm are continuing to rise. Recent research is increasingly showing that for some prisoners, self-harm and violence co-occur, i.e. they engage in dual harm. This study contributes to the developing research and literature focusing on dual harm by presenting an analysis of the dual harm experiences of six men residing in a Category B English prison. Participants were interviewed and their narratives analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. Superordinate and subordinate themes were identified, and they shed further light on why men in prison dual harm and what influences their decision to engage in one type of harm over the other at any given time. The findings indicate that co-occurrence is not coincidental. Participants experienced a combination of interlinking factors and complex temporal and experiential relationships underpinning the two behaviours: experiencing difficult and unpredictable environments, an incoherence of sense of self and identity, painful psychological and emotional states, and connections to early adverse experiences. The findings are discussed in line with the growing dual harm research and wider psychological literature. Limitations of the study and future research directions are provided, and implications for policy and practice are suggested.
{"title":"‘You can have a bit of my pain, see how it feels’ – understanding male prisoners who engage in dual harm behaviours","authors":"Amanda Pickering, N. Blagden, K. Slade","doi":"10.1080/1068316X.2022.2037593","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2037593","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Prison-based violence and self-harm are continuing to rise. Recent research is increasingly showing that for some prisoners, self-harm and violence co-occur, i.e. they engage in dual harm. This study contributes to the developing research and literature focusing on dual harm by presenting an analysis of the dual harm experiences of six men residing in a Category B English prison. Participants were interviewed and their narratives analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. Superordinate and subordinate themes were identified, and they shed further light on why men in prison dual harm and what influences their decision to engage in one type of harm over the other at any given time. The findings indicate that co-occurrence is not coincidental. Participants experienced a combination of interlinking factors and complex temporal and experiential relationships underpinning the two behaviours: experiencing difficult and unpredictable environments, an incoherence of sense of self and identity, painful psychological and emotional states, and connections to early adverse experiences. The findings are discussed in line with the growing dual harm research and wider psychological literature. Limitations of the study and future research directions are provided, and implications for policy and practice are suggested.","PeriodicalId":47845,"journal":{"name":"Psychology Crime & Law","volume":"45 1","pages":"825 - 848"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80977373","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT General strain theory (GST) has been applied to explain the causes of delinquency in Western and China context, which argues that strain is a major source of criminal motivation. Being an important source of strain, the subjective perception of justice has the potential to promote negative emotions and delinquency. Using a sample of 2081 students from 11 middle schools and 11 vocational schools in South China, the current study tests associations and intervening paths between perceived justice, life satisfaction, negative emotions and delinquency. Results revealed that dissatisfactory perceived justice promoted delinquency, and this relationship was mediated by life satisfaction and negative emotions. Limitations and future research directions are discussed.
{"title":"Perceived justice, negative emotions and delinquency in Chinese high schools and vocational schools","authors":"Jinwu Zhang, Jianhong Liu, Shan Cui, Honglan Shuai","doi":"10.1080/1068316X.2022.2039652","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2039652","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT General strain theory (GST) has been applied to explain the causes of delinquency in Western and China context, which argues that strain is a major source of criminal motivation. Being an important source of strain, the subjective perception of justice has the potential to promote negative emotions and delinquency. Using a sample of 2081 students from 11 middle schools and 11 vocational schools in South China, the current study tests associations and intervening paths between perceived justice, life satisfaction, negative emotions and delinquency. Results revealed that dissatisfactory perceived justice promoted delinquency, and this relationship was mediated by life satisfaction and negative emotions. Limitations and future research directions are discussed.","PeriodicalId":47845,"journal":{"name":"Psychology Crime & Law","volume":"30 1","pages":"922 - 933"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90333612","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-14DOI: 10.1080/1068316X.2022.2038155
Aisha K Christiansen, Jodi L. Viljoen
ABSTRACT This study used a novel approach to assess the content validity of three adolescent risk assessment tools: the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY; Borum et al., 2006), the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk – Youth Version (SAPROF-YV; de Vries Robbé et al., 2015), and the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version (START:AV; Viljoen et al., 2014). In-person interviews and online surveys were conducted with people with a history of adolescent offending (n = 103), which included open-ended questions about their desistance from offending, followed by direct questions based on the tools’ protective factors. Responses were coded using directed content analyses based on the tools’ item definitions. In open-ended questions, across participants all items were mentioned, and all items were rated as important by at least some participants. Only a few additional themes emerged that were not captured by the tools. In addition, participants primarily discussed the presence of protective factors rather than the removal of risk factors, suggesting they represent distinct constructs. Overall the findings support the content validity of the SAVRY, SAPROF-YV, and START:AV protective factors, and highlight the value of perspectives from people with lived experience in risk assessment research.
{"title":"Do adolescent risk assessment tools capture self-reported reasons for desistance? An examination of the content validity of protective factors","authors":"Aisha K Christiansen, Jodi L. Viljoen","doi":"10.1080/1068316X.2022.2038155","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2038155","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\u0000 This study used a novel approach to assess the content validity of three adolescent risk assessment tools: the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY; Borum et al., 2006), the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk – Youth Version (SAPROF-YV; de Vries Robbé et al., 2015), and the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version (START:AV; Viljoen et al., 2014). In-person interviews and online surveys were conducted with people with a history of adolescent offending (n = 103), which included open-ended questions about their desistance from offending, followed by direct questions based on the tools’ protective factors. Responses were coded using directed content analyses based on the tools’ item definitions. In open-ended questions, across participants all items were mentioned, and all items were rated as important by at least some participants. Only a few additional themes emerged that were not captured by the tools. In addition, participants primarily discussed the presence of protective factors rather than the removal of risk factors, suggesting they represent distinct constructs. Overall the findings support the content validity of the SAVRY, SAPROF-YV, and START:AV protective factors, and highlight the value of perspectives from people with lived experience in risk assessment research.","PeriodicalId":47845,"journal":{"name":"Psychology Crime & Law","volume":"63 1","pages":"849 - 874"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87404001","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-10DOI: 10.1080/1068316X.2022.2034816
R. Rogers, Sara E. Hartigan, Minqi Pan, E. Drogin, Jordan E. Donson
ABSTRACT Criminal defendants have a 6th Amendment right to an impartial jury, but customary methods of jury selection often fail to uncover deeply held juror attitudes. Addressing the death penalty as a polarizing issue, the Juror Questionnaire of Values and Viewpoints (JQVV) was validated and cross-validated with two separate MTurk studies of capital jury-eligible adults. With complete anonymity assured by MTurk, Study 1 assessed death-penalty attitudes for 354 juror-eligible participants and their likelihood of mispresenting their views during voir dire. Validity of the JQVV was assessed with the Pretrial Juror Attitude Questionnaire (PJAQ) and predicted differences for Support-Death and Support-Life group. Study 2, with an entirely new sample of 313 juror-eligible adults, cross-validated the JQVV and tested the effects of positive impression management (PIM). Importantly, Support-Death mostly expressed their candid views even with the PIM condition. Although Support-Life frequently denied their death-penalty views, the JQVV Prosecution-Cynicism (Pro-Cyn) scale proved moderately effective at identifying their denials. Professional implications for capital jury selection are discussed.
{"title":"Perspectives of juror-eligible adults: validation of the Juror Questionnaire of Values and Viewpoints (JQVV) for capital cases","authors":"R. Rogers, Sara E. Hartigan, Minqi Pan, E. Drogin, Jordan E. Donson","doi":"10.1080/1068316X.2022.2034816","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2034816","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Criminal defendants have a 6th Amendment right to an impartial jury, but customary methods of jury selection often fail to uncover deeply held juror attitudes. Addressing the death penalty as a polarizing issue, the Juror Questionnaire of Values and Viewpoints (JQVV) was validated and cross-validated with two separate MTurk studies of capital jury-eligible adults. With complete anonymity assured by MTurk, Study 1 assessed death-penalty attitudes for 354 juror-eligible participants and their likelihood of mispresenting their views during voir dire. Validity of the JQVV was assessed with the Pretrial Juror Attitude Questionnaire (PJAQ) and predicted differences for Support-Death and Support-Life group. Study 2, with an entirely new sample of 313 juror-eligible adults, cross-validated the JQVV and tested the effects of positive impression management (PIM). Importantly, Support-Death mostly expressed their candid views even with the PIM condition. Although Support-Life frequently denied their death-penalty views, the JQVV Prosecution-Cynicism (Pro-Cyn) scale proved moderately effective at identifying their denials. Professional implications for capital jury selection are discussed.","PeriodicalId":47845,"journal":{"name":"Psychology Crime & Law","volume":"21 1","pages":"768 - 794"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88044121","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-10DOI: 10.1080/1068316X.2022.2038156
Curt A. Carlson, Robert F. Lockamyeir, Alyssa R. Jones, Jacob A. Hemby
ABSTRACT Based on its importance in the criminal justice system, it is critical to understand how jurors interpret eyewitness identification evidence in the form of photo arrays and witness statements. We addressed several unresolved questions, including: How do potential jurors interpret eyewitness statements regarding confidence and decision speed? Are suspect identifications from fair lineups trusted more than those from biased lineups or showups? What if the eyewitness chooses a filler or rejects the lineup? Three experiments with large demographically-diverse U.S. samples provided three novel results. First, identifications with fast statements (e.g. ‘I identified him instantly.’) were trusted more than identifications with slow statements (e.g. ‘I recognized him after a few minutes.’) unless they were supported with low confidence, when speed statement had no effect. Second, biased lineups were often not perceived as biased, but when they were, suspect identifications were not trusted. Third, neither confidence nor speed statements had any impact on judgments of suspect guilt when participants were informed that a filler was chosen or the lineup/showup was rejected. We recommend that jurors be educated regarding how to appropriately evaluate eyewitness evidence.
{"title":"How potential jurors evaluate eyewitness confidence and decision time statements across identification procedures and for different eyewitness decisions","authors":"Curt A. Carlson, Robert F. Lockamyeir, Alyssa R. Jones, Jacob A. Hemby","doi":"10.1080/1068316X.2022.2038156","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2038156","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Based on its importance in the criminal justice system, it is critical to understand how jurors interpret eyewitness identification evidence in the form of photo arrays and witness statements. We addressed several unresolved questions, including: How do potential jurors interpret eyewitness statements regarding confidence and decision speed? Are suspect identifications from fair lineups trusted more than those from biased lineups or showups? What if the eyewitness chooses a filler or rejects the lineup? Three experiments with large demographically-diverse U.S. samples provided three novel results. First, identifications with fast statements (e.g. ‘I identified him instantly.’) were trusted more than identifications with slow statements (e.g. ‘I recognized him after a few minutes.’) unless they were supported with low confidence, when speed statement had no effect. Second, biased lineups were often not perceived as biased, but when they were, suspect identifications were not trusted. Third, neither confidence nor speed statements had any impact on judgments of suspect guilt when participants were informed that a filler was chosen or the lineup/showup was rejected. We recommend that jurors be educated regarding how to appropriately evaluate eyewitness evidence.","PeriodicalId":47845,"journal":{"name":"Psychology Crime & Law","volume":"70 1","pages":"875 - 902"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80621288","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-08DOI: 10.1080/1068316X.2022.2036739
Melissa de Vel-Palumbo, Colleen M. Berryessa
ABSTRACT When we see others in pain, sympathy is often our instinctive and expected response. Yet in some cases, we may be indifferent to—and even take pleasure in—the suffering of others. Particularly, the public has historically expressed apathy toward and even endorsement of incidental harms experienced by those in the criminal justice system (i.e. catching a disease or experiencing abuse or neglect in custody). In this paper, we propose a new conceptual framework for understanding these views. We contend that people make character-based judgments to justify the incidental suffering of people who have committed crimes. By being in prison, or by having committed a crime in the past, one may be viewed as fundamentally distinct from other citizens—now categorized as a fundamentally “rotten” person who deserves any further suffering they might experience. We explore the nature of incidental harms suffered by those in the criminal justice system, as well as identify potential psychological and cognitive mechanisms that may underlie public indifference to such suffering, including psychological essentialism and immanent justice reasoning. Finally, we outline the legal and social implications of such views, and ultimately, propose ways in which future research might advance knowledge about this phenomenon.
{"title":"When bad things happen to rotten people: indifference to incidental harms in the criminal justice system","authors":"Melissa de Vel-Palumbo, Colleen M. Berryessa","doi":"10.1080/1068316X.2022.2036739","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2036739","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT When we see others in pain, sympathy is often our instinctive and expected response. Yet in some cases, we may be indifferent to—and even take pleasure in—the suffering of others. Particularly, the public has historically expressed apathy toward and even endorsement of incidental harms experienced by those in the criminal justice system (i.e. catching a disease or experiencing abuse or neglect in custody). In this paper, we propose a new conceptual framework for understanding these views. We contend that people make character-based judgments to justify the incidental suffering of people who have committed crimes. By being in prison, or by having committed a crime in the past, one may be viewed as fundamentally distinct from other citizens—now categorized as a fundamentally “rotten” person who deserves any further suffering they might experience. We explore the nature of incidental harms suffered by those in the criminal justice system, as well as identify potential psychological and cognitive mechanisms that may underlie public indifference to such suffering, including psychological essentialism and immanent justice reasoning. Finally, we outline the legal and social implications of such views, and ultimately, propose ways in which future research might advance knowledge about this phenomenon.","PeriodicalId":47845,"journal":{"name":"Psychology Crime & Law","volume":"21 1","pages":"795 - 808"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80838472","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-06DOI: 10.1080/1068316X.2022.2030333
B. Sizoo, B. Doosje, B. van Meijel
ABSTRACT This study investigates how perceptions of radicalisation and co-occurring mental health issues differ between mental health care and the security domain, and how these perceptions affect intersectoral collaboration. It is generally thought that intersectoral collaboration is a useful strategy for preventing radicalisation and terrorism, especially when it concerns radicalised persons with mental health issues. It is not clear, however, what perceptions professionals have of radicalisation and collaboration with other disciplines. Data was obtained from focus groups and individual interviews with practitioners and trainers from mental health care and the security domain in the Netherlands. The results show a lack of knowledge about radicalisation in mental health care, whereas in the security domain, there is little understanding of mental health issues. This leads to a mad-bad dichotomy which has a negative effect on collaboration and risk management. Improvement of the intersectoral collaboration by cross-domain familiarization, and strengthening of trust and mutual understanding, should begin with the basic training of professionals in both domains. The Care and Safety Houses in the Netherlands offer a sound base for intersectoral collaboration. Future professionals from different domains ought to be familiarized with each other’s possibilities, limitations, tasks, and roles.
{"title":"RETRACTED ARTICLE: Perceptions of radicalisation in mental health care and the security domain: roles, responsibilities, and collaboration","authors":"B. Sizoo, B. Doosje, B. van Meijel","doi":"10.1080/1068316X.2022.2030333","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2030333","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study investigates how perceptions of radicalisation and co-occurring mental health issues differ between mental health care and the security domain, and how these perceptions affect intersectoral collaboration. It is generally thought that intersectoral collaboration is a useful strategy for preventing radicalisation and terrorism, especially when it concerns radicalised persons with mental health issues. It is not clear, however, what perceptions professionals have of radicalisation and collaboration with other disciplines. Data was obtained from focus groups and individual interviews with practitioners and trainers from mental health care and the security domain in the Netherlands. The results show a lack of knowledge about radicalisation in mental health care, whereas in the security domain, there is little understanding of mental health issues. This leads to a mad-bad dichotomy which has a negative effect on collaboration and risk management. Improvement of the intersectoral collaboration by cross-domain familiarization, and strengthening of trust and mutual understanding, should begin with the basic training of professionals in both domains. The Care and Safety Houses in the Netherlands offer a sound base for intersectoral collaboration. Future professionals from different domains ought to be familiarized with each other’s possibilities, limitations, tasks, and roles.","PeriodicalId":47845,"journal":{"name":"Psychology Crime & Law","volume":"8 1","pages":"548 - 565"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84965979","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-06DOI: 10.1080/1068316X.2022.2032054
E. Link, F. Lösel
ABSTRACT Dichotomous recidivism criteria are the main measure of success in forensic treatment studies. However, there is wide agreement that binary outcome measures are too undifferentiated, particularly when official reoffending rates are rather low. Considering previous research on offense severity and the Cambridge Crime Harm Index, we addressed this issue by developing a severity index based on sentencing provisions in the German law. Based on a large dataset of males convicted of sexual crimes who had been released from Bavarian prisons between 2004 and 2008, we analyzed the subgroup of n = 48 individuals who recidivated with a sexual offense. About half of the sample had received treatment during imprisonment. Whereas prior analyses did not reveal a significant treatment effect on dichotomous sexual reoffending, the present harm analyses showed a stronger decrease of sex offense severity for treated compared to untreated participants. Despite some limitations of our study, the results indicate that prison-based treatment might decrease the severity of sexual reoffending in males convicted of sexual offenses. From a harm reduction perspective, our findings support the use of severity measures complementary to dichotomous outcome criteria. The applicability of our severity index and implications for future research on prison-based treatment are discussed.
{"title":"Development and application of an offense severity index in the evaluation of treatment of individuals convicted of sexual crimes","authors":"E. Link, F. Lösel","doi":"10.1080/1068316X.2022.2032054","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2032054","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Dichotomous recidivism criteria are the main measure of success in forensic treatment studies. However, there is wide agreement that binary outcome measures are too undifferentiated, particularly when official reoffending rates are rather low. Considering previous research on offense severity and the Cambridge Crime Harm Index, we addressed this issue by developing a severity index based on sentencing provisions in the German law. Based on a large dataset of males convicted of sexual crimes who had been released from Bavarian prisons between 2004 and 2008, we analyzed the subgroup of n = 48 individuals who recidivated with a sexual offense. About half of the sample had received treatment during imprisonment. Whereas prior analyses did not reveal a significant treatment effect on dichotomous sexual reoffending, the present harm analyses showed a stronger decrease of sex offense severity for treated compared to untreated participants. Despite some limitations of our study, the results indicate that prison-based treatment might decrease the severity of sexual reoffending in males convicted of sexual offenses. From a harm reduction perspective, our findings support the use of severity measures complementary to dichotomous outcome criteria. The applicability of our severity index and implications for future research on prison-based treatment are discussed.","PeriodicalId":47845,"journal":{"name":"Psychology Crime & Law","volume":"22 1","pages":"722 - 739"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80775747","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-06DOI: 10.1080/1068316X.2021.2007912
Kylie N. Key, J. Neuschatz, S. D. Gronlund, Danielle K. DeLoach, S. A. Wetmore, Ryan M. McAdoo, Duncan McCollum
ABSTRACT Recent research shows a strong positive relationship between eyewitness confidence and identification accuracy, assuming the confidence judgment results from a first, fair test of memory. The current study examines whether jurors understand this relationship, and the boundary conditions under which this understanding holds. Mock jurors read a trial transcript in which we manipulated the eyewitness’ level of confidence (high vs. low), the timing of the confidence judgment (initial, courtroom), and its consistency (if the eyewitness expressed initial and courtroom confidence, did the two judgments match). Mock jurors voted guilty more when confidence was high, regardless of when the confidence judgment was made, or whether there were inconsistencies in the confidence levels. Jurors need a more nuanced appreciation of the role of eyewitness confidence, and we discuss ideas for potential interventions that may aid jurors’ decision making.
{"title":"High eyewitness confidence is always compelling: that’s a problem","authors":"Kylie N. Key, J. Neuschatz, S. D. Gronlund, Danielle K. DeLoach, S. A. Wetmore, Ryan M. McAdoo, Duncan McCollum","doi":"10.1080/1068316X.2021.2007912","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2021.2007912","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Recent research shows a strong positive relationship between eyewitness confidence and identification accuracy, assuming the confidence judgment results from a first, fair test of memory. The current study examines whether jurors understand this relationship, and the boundary conditions under which this understanding holds. Mock jurors read a trial transcript in which we manipulated the eyewitness’ level of confidence (high vs. low), the timing of the confidence judgment (initial, courtroom), and its consistency (if the eyewitness expressed initial and courtroom confidence, did the two judgments match). Mock jurors voted guilty more when confidence was high, regardless of when the confidence judgment was made, or whether there were inconsistencies in the confidence levels. Jurors need a more nuanced appreciation of the role of eyewitness confidence, and we discuss ideas for potential interventions that may aid jurors’ decision making.","PeriodicalId":47845,"journal":{"name":"Psychology Crime & Law","volume":"59 1","pages":"120 - 141"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76945431","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-31DOI: 10.1080/1068316X.2022.2030737
Christopher J. Lively, L. Fallon, Brent Snook, Weyam Fahmy
ABSTRACT Judges are the gatekeepers of evidence in the justice system. Granted that witness testimony is pivotal to the truth-seeking function of the criminal justice system, and that judges sometimes intervene and ask questions in the courtroom to help ensure the testimony is accurate, little is known about judges’ questioning practices. In the current study, we examine the questioning practices of a sample of Canadian judges. A total of 3,140 utterances spoken by 15 different judges across 22 criminal cases (169 witness examinations) were classified as one of 13 utterance types, and assessed as a function of examination type; utterance and response lengths were also calculated. Results showed that, when talking to witnesses directly, most of the questions asked were clarification (37%), followed by facilitators (17%), and closed yes/no (10%); less than 1% of all question types were open-ended. The longest answers were provided in response to open-ended questions. We also found that closed yes/no questions were the most frequently used question types during judge-led lines of questioning (i.e. examinations per curium), as opposed to lawyer-led lines of questioning (i.e. during direct and cross examinations). Implications for the truth-seeking function of the justice system are discussed.
{"title":"Objection, your Honour: examining the questioning practices of Canadian judges","authors":"Christopher J. Lively, L. Fallon, Brent Snook, Weyam Fahmy","doi":"10.1080/1068316X.2022.2030737","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2030737","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Judges are the gatekeepers of evidence in the justice system. Granted that witness testimony is pivotal to the truth-seeking function of the criminal justice system, and that judges sometimes intervene and ask questions in the courtroom to help ensure the testimony is accurate, little is known about judges’ questioning practices. In the current study, we examine the questioning practices of a sample of Canadian judges. A total of 3,140 utterances spoken by 15 different judges across 22 criminal cases (169 witness examinations) were classified as one of 13 utterance types, and assessed as a function of examination type; utterance and response lengths were also calculated. Results showed that, when talking to witnesses directly, most of the questions asked were clarification (37%), followed by facilitators (17%), and closed yes/no (10%); less than 1% of all question types were open-ended. The longest answers were provided in response to open-ended questions. We also found that closed yes/no questions were the most frequently used question types during judge-led lines of questioning (i.e. examinations per curium), as opposed to lawyer-led lines of questioning (i.e. during direct and cross examinations). Implications for the truth-seeking function of the justice system are discussed.","PeriodicalId":47845,"journal":{"name":"Psychology Crime & Law","volume":"165 1","pages":"677 - 695"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72435854","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：