Krystia Reed,Valerie P Hans,Vivian N Rotenstein,Peter McKendall,Addison Rodriguez,Rebecca K Helm,Valerie F Reyna
OBJECTIVECourts have dramatically increased their use of virtual jury trials, but empirical research has yet to examine differences between in-person and virtual jury deliberations.HYPOTHESESWe tested competing hypotheses that in-person juries would be better (or worse) than virtual juries in terms of attention and engagement, deliberation, and diversity.METHODCommunity members (N = 317; 61% women; 86.1% White; mean age = 48.68 years) watched a videotaped trial involving an automobile accident and then deliberated either in person or virtually in 54 mock juries (Nin person = 24; Nvirtual = 30).RESULTSIn-person and virtual juries did not differ significantly across most outcomes. However, regarding attention and engagement, virtual juries reported expending greater cognitive effort (d = 0.59) than in-person juries. Regarding deliberation, in-person juries interrupted each other significantly more often than virtual juries (d = 1.93), and they discussed more topics than virtual juries (d = 0.59-1.02). Regarding diversity, virtual jurors were younger (d = 0.55), wealthier (d = 0.66), and more educated (φ = .14) than in-person jurors, although both samples were recruited in the same manner.CONCLUSIONSDespite concerns that virtual formats substantially reduce jurors' attention/engagement and change the nature of their deliberations, virtual jurors thoroughly processed relevant evidence and reportedly expended more effort in doing so. Although virtual formats may require more technologically savvy jurors (expected to correlate with a juror's age, wealth, and education), this study provides little evidence that virtual jury participation fundamentally alters core aspects of jury deliberation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
{"title":"Virtually the same? A comparison between in-person and virtual mock jury deliberations.","authors":"Krystia Reed,Valerie P Hans,Vivian N Rotenstein,Peter McKendall,Addison Rodriguez,Rebecca K Helm,Valerie F Reyna","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000643","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000643","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVECourts have dramatically increased their use of virtual jury trials, but empirical research has yet to examine differences between in-person and virtual jury deliberations.HYPOTHESESWe tested competing hypotheses that in-person juries would be better (or worse) than virtual juries in terms of attention and engagement, deliberation, and diversity.METHODCommunity members (N = 317; 61% women; 86.1% White; mean age = 48.68 years) watched a videotaped trial involving an automobile accident and then deliberated either in person or virtually in 54 mock juries (Nin person = 24; Nvirtual = 30).RESULTSIn-person and virtual juries did not differ significantly across most outcomes. However, regarding attention and engagement, virtual juries reported expending greater cognitive effort (d = 0.59) than in-person juries. Regarding deliberation, in-person juries interrupted each other significantly more often than virtual juries (d = 1.93), and they discussed more topics than virtual juries (d = 0.59-1.02). Regarding diversity, virtual jurors were younger (d = 0.55), wealthier (d = 0.66), and more educated (φ = .14) than in-person jurors, although both samples were recruited in the same manner.CONCLUSIONSDespite concerns that virtual formats substantially reduce jurors' attention/engagement and change the nature of their deliberations, virtual jurors thoroughly processed relevant evidence and reportedly expended more effort in doing so. Although virtual formats may require more technologically savvy jurors (expected to correlate with a juror's age, wealth, and education), this study provides little evidence that virtual jury participation fundamentally alters core aspects of jury deliberation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"281 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2026-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146073074","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
OBJECTIVELineup construction relies on matching fillers to the suspect's appearance or to the eyewitness's description of the perpetrator (match to description, MTD). Recent work shows that low (vs. high)-similarity fillers beyond MTD improve discriminability. We tested lineups constructed with differing suspect-filler (SF) similarity levels beyond MTD (low, moderate, high) against MTD only, varying exposure duration, culprit race, and innocent suspect-culprit resemblance (guilty-innocent [GI] similarity).HYPOTHESESWe expected the highest discriminability for low-SF similarity lineups, moderate next, MTD-only lower, and high lowest-alongside higher discriminability for long (cf. short) exposures, same-race (cf. cross-race) culprits, and low GI similarity (cf. high). We expected high-SF similarity to better protect high GI similarity innocents and low F-similarity to aid culprit identifications regardless of GI similarity. We also anticipated stronger benefits of low-SF similarity lineups for cross-race culprits and shorter exposures.METHODAll lineups, except MTD only, were constructed using an artificial intelligence-driven, objective, and reproducible measure and varied by SF similarity. Participants (N = 2,644) recruited via Prolific watched four short or long videos (half with White, half with African American culprits), completed a distractor task, and made lineup identifications (culprit-present or culprit-absent) with confidence ratings.RESULTSBoth low- and high-SF similarity lineups produced higher discriminability than MTD-only lineups. While low-SF similarity lineups enhanced guilty suspect detection, high-SF similarity lineups better protected innocent suspects. Furthermore, low-SF similarity lineups yielded the best identification accuracy, and high-SF similarity lineups yielded the best diagnosticity ratio. No interactions emerged.CONCLUSIONSUsing match-to-suspect beyond MTD-especially at the highest or lowest SF similarity-improves lineup performance regardless of factors outside the justice system's control. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
{"title":"Artificial Intelligence-based investigation of filler selection strategies.","authors":"Dilhan Töredi,Steven D Penrod","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000650","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000650","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVELineup construction relies on matching fillers to the suspect's appearance or to the eyewitness's description of the perpetrator (match to description, MTD). Recent work shows that low (vs. high)-similarity fillers beyond MTD improve discriminability. We tested lineups constructed with differing suspect-filler (SF) similarity levels beyond MTD (low, moderate, high) against MTD only, varying exposure duration, culprit race, and innocent suspect-culprit resemblance (guilty-innocent [GI] similarity).HYPOTHESESWe expected the highest discriminability for low-SF similarity lineups, moderate next, MTD-only lower, and high lowest-alongside higher discriminability for long (cf. short) exposures, same-race (cf. cross-race) culprits, and low GI similarity (cf. high). We expected high-SF similarity to better protect high GI similarity innocents and low F-similarity to aid culprit identifications regardless of GI similarity. We also anticipated stronger benefits of low-SF similarity lineups for cross-race culprits and shorter exposures.METHODAll lineups, except MTD only, were constructed using an artificial intelligence-driven, objective, and reproducible measure and varied by SF similarity. Participants (N = 2,644) recruited via Prolific watched four short or long videos (half with White, half with African American culprits), completed a distractor task, and made lineup identifications (culprit-present or culprit-absent) with confidence ratings.RESULTSBoth low- and high-SF similarity lineups produced higher discriminability than MTD-only lineups. While low-SF similarity lineups enhanced guilty suspect detection, high-SF similarity lineups better protected innocent suspects. Furthermore, low-SF similarity lineups yielded the best identification accuracy, and high-SF similarity lineups yielded the best diagnosticity ratio. No interactions emerged.CONCLUSIONSUsing match-to-suspect beyond MTD-especially at the highest or lowest SF similarity-improves lineup performance regardless of factors outside the justice system's control. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"222 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2026-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146014695","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Supplemental Material for Artificial Intelligence–Based Investigation of Filler Selection Strategies","authors":"","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000650.supp","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000650.supp","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2026-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146032784","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Siyu Li, Pär-Anders Granhag, Yunhan Shi, Yongjie Sun, Thomas J Nyman, Shumpei Haginoya, Pekka Santtila
Objective: The strategic use of evidence (SUE) is a technique that aims to improve the ability to differentiate between liars and truth-tellers. However, while theoretical training provides guidance on interview techniques, it lacks opportunities for practical application.
Hypotheses: We created two large language model driven artificial intelligence (AI) suspects with whom participants could simulate interviews and hypothesized that these simulations would enhance the transfer of training to later interactions with human mock suspects.
Method: The study included 156 Chinese laypersons (78 interviewers and 78 human mock suspects). The two AI suspects followed response rules representing simplified and prototypical examples of liars' and truth-tellers' behaviors under the SUE model. Interviewers were randomly allocated to one of three types of training: (a) instruction and AI exercise, (b) instruction, and (c) control. After the training, the participants interacted with either a lying or truthful human mock suspect.
Results: Receiving interventions made interviewers use evidence-framing matrix (an important tactic within the SUE framework) more frequently, thereby eliciting more inconsistencies between the lying human mock suspects' statements and the evidence (i.e., evidence-statement inconsistencies) as well as more inconsistencies within their own statements (i.e., within-statement inconsistencies). Both instruction and instruction and AI exercise groups used evidence-statement (in)consistencies more to make their judgments about whether human mock suspects were lying or truthful compared to those in the control group. In addition, the instruction and AI exercise group was better at accurately judging whether the human mock suspects were lying or truthful compared to the control group.
Conclusions: Overall, this study provided preliminary evidence that simulated SUE with AI suspects transferred to interactions with human mock suspects in a controllable experimental setting, but that the advantage over instruction-only was not particularly robust. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
{"title":"Using large language model-based artificial intelligence (AI) suspects to train strategic use of evidence: Preliminary evidence of transfer to mock suspect interviews.","authors":"Siyu Li, Pär-Anders Granhag, Yunhan Shi, Yongjie Sun, Thomas J Nyman, Shumpei Haginoya, Pekka Santtila","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000647","DOIUrl":"10.1037/lhb0000647","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The strategic use of evidence (SUE) is a technique that aims to improve the ability to differentiate between liars and truth-tellers. However, while theoretical training provides guidance on interview techniques, it lacks opportunities for practical application.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>We created two large language model driven artificial intelligence (AI) suspects with whom participants could simulate interviews and hypothesized that these simulations would enhance the transfer of training to later interactions with human mock suspects.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The study included 156 Chinese laypersons (78 interviewers and 78 human mock suspects). The two AI suspects followed response rules representing simplified and prototypical examples of liars' and truth-tellers' behaviors under the SUE model. Interviewers were randomly allocated to one of three types of training: (a) instruction and AI exercise, (b) instruction, and (c) control. After the training, the participants interacted with either a lying or truthful human mock suspect.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Receiving interventions made interviewers use evidence-framing matrix (an important tactic within the SUE framework) more frequently, thereby eliciting more inconsistencies between the lying human mock suspects' statements and the evidence (i.e., evidence-statement inconsistencies) as well as more inconsistencies within their own statements (i.e., within-statement inconsistencies). Both instruction and instruction and AI exercise groups used evidence-statement (in)consistencies more to make their judgments about whether human mock suspects were lying or truthful compared to those in the control group. In addition, the instruction and AI exercise group was better at accurately judging whether the human mock suspects were lying or truthful compared to the control group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, this study provided preliminary evidence that simulated SUE with AI suspects transferred to interactions with human mock suspects in a controllable experimental setting, but that the advantage over instruction-only was not particularly robust. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2026-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146012843","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jordan Kerere,Dewey Cornell,Timothy Konold,Jennifer Maeng
OBJECTIVESchool threat assessment is a widely used strategy for preventing violence. However, there have been few studies of student attacks following a threat assessment. Additionally, most existing studies have been conducted within a single state, limiting the generalizability of findings. Thus, the primary purpose of this study was to identify student- and school-level correlates of attack rates in a multistate sample of schools.HYPOTHESESWe hypothesized that most threat assessment cases will not lead to attacks, but that attacks will be more likely in more serious threat cases. We hypothesized that attacks will be lower in schools using safety staff (including school resource officers and security guards) and anonymous reporting systems.METHODBased on 2,349 case records from 166 schools in five U.S. states, this study examined the frequency of student attacks following a threat assessment using the Comprehensive School Threat Assessment Guidelines. The study also examined the relationships between threat classification and school safety measures with student attack outcomes (injury or no injury).RESULTSThere were 234 (10%) cases involving an attack, and seven (0.3%) resulted in serious injury to the target. The odds of an attack were approximately 20 times greater for serious threats compared to nonserious threats. The presence of school safety measures did not significantly correlate with student attacks or injury.CONCLUSIONSSchool threat assessment teams can manage student threats of violence with few subsequent attacks but should anticipate that threat classification is strongly associated with the likelihood of an attack and therefore warrants increased intervention and preventive actions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
{"title":"Violence following a threat assessment: Do threat classification and school safety measures matter?","authors":"Jordan Kerere,Dewey Cornell,Timothy Konold,Jennifer Maeng","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000649","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000649","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVESchool threat assessment is a widely used strategy for preventing violence. However, there have been few studies of student attacks following a threat assessment. Additionally, most existing studies have been conducted within a single state, limiting the generalizability of findings. Thus, the primary purpose of this study was to identify student- and school-level correlates of attack rates in a multistate sample of schools.HYPOTHESESWe hypothesized that most threat assessment cases will not lead to attacks, but that attacks will be more likely in more serious threat cases. We hypothesized that attacks will be lower in schools using safety staff (including school resource officers and security guards) and anonymous reporting systems.METHODBased on 2,349 case records from 166 schools in five U.S. states, this study examined the frequency of student attacks following a threat assessment using the Comprehensive School Threat Assessment Guidelines. The study also examined the relationships between threat classification and school safety measures with student attack outcomes (injury or no injury).RESULTSThere were 234 (10%) cases involving an attack, and seven (0.3%) resulted in serious injury to the target. The odds of an attack were approximately 20 times greater for serious threats compared to nonserious threats. The presence of school safety measures did not significantly correlate with student attacks or injury.CONCLUSIONSSchool threat assessment teams can manage student threats of violence with few subsequent attacks but should anticipate that threat classification is strongly associated with the likelihood of an attack and therefore warrants increased intervention and preventive actions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"48 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2026-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146005440","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Maude Boucher-Réhel,Yanick Charette,Chloé Leclerc,Audrey-Anne Dumais Michaud,Geneviève Nault,Anne G Crocker
OBJECTIVEPersons with behavioral disorders, including those with dual disorders (DDs; i.e., co-occurring mental and substance use disorders [SUDs]), are overrepresented in the criminal justice system. Mental health courts (MHCs) offer an alternative to incarceration and aim to reduce recidivism. However, research indicates that participants with a SUD often complete MHCs at lower rates than those without, highlighting the need to identify effective services that support completion and improve outcomes for this group. This study examines how MHCs support participants with DDs.HYPOTHESESWe hypothesized that MHCs will use SUD-specific intervention objectives (e.g., SUD services and treatment objectives) to guide participants with DDs through the MHC process, positively influencing MHC completion.METHODUsing a sample of 877 participants (261 with a SUD) from 10 MHCs in Quebec, Canada, we conducted bivariate analyses comparing psycho-socio-criminological profiles and MHC interventions for participants with and without a SUD. Decision-tree analysis assessed 16 individual characteristics and events (e.g., factors beyond the MHC team's control during program participation) as well as 19 intervention objectives (e.g., types of services, treatment objectives, and conditions set by multidisciplinary teams) to identify which factors effectively support participants with a SUD in graduating from MHCs.RESULTSBivariate analyses show that MHC teams utilize SUD-specific objectives, conditions, and services to address the many clinical and criminogenic needs of participants with DDs. Decision-tree analysis revealed that participants with DDs benefited the most from medical and psychosocial services to complete the MHC.CONCLUSIONSThe fact that medical and psychosocial services help participants with DDs successfully complete MHCs suggests that prioritizing access to these services during the program is essential for improving completion rates. These findings highlight the importance of tailoring MHC interventions to the complex needs of this group, such as medical care, housing, and workforce integration programs. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
{"title":"The effect of individualized treatment for participants with substance use disorder on completion of mental health courts programs.","authors":"Maude Boucher-Réhel,Yanick Charette,Chloé Leclerc,Audrey-Anne Dumais Michaud,Geneviève Nault,Anne G Crocker","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000655","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000655","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVEPersons with behavioral disorders, including those with dual disorders (DDs; i.e., co-occurring mental and substance use disorders [SUDs]), are overrepresented in the criminal justice system. Mental health courts (MHCs) offer an alternative to incarceration and aim to reduce recidivism. However, research indicates that participants with a SUD often complete MHCs at lower rates than those without, highlighting the need to identify effective services that support completion and improve outcomes for this group. This study examines how MHCs support participants with DDs.HYPOTHESESWe hypothesized that MHCs will use SUD-specific intervention objectives (e.g., SUD services and treatment objectives) to guide participants with DDs through the MHC process, positively influencing MHC completion.METHODUsing a sample of 877 participants (261 with a SUD) from 10 MHCs in Quebec, Canada, we conducted bivariate analyses comparing psycho-socio-criminological profiles and MHC interventions for participants with and without a SUD. Decision-tree analysis assessed 16 individual characteristics and events (e.g., factors beyond the MHC team's control during program participation) as well as 19 intervention objectives (e.g., types of services, treatment objectives, and conditions set by multidisciplinary teams) to identify which factors effectively support participants with a SUD in graduating from MHCs.RESULTSBivariate analyses show that MHC teams utilize SUD-specific objectives, conditions, and services to address the many clinical and criminogenic needs of participants with DDs. Decision-tree analysis revealed that participants with DDs benefited the most from medical and psychosocial services to complete the MHC.CONCLUSIONSThe fact that medical and psychosocial services help participants with DDs successfully complete MHCs suggests that prioritizing access to these services during the program is essential for improving completion rates. These findings highlight the importance of tailoring MHC interventions to the complex needs of this group, such as medical care, housing, and workforce integration programs. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2026-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146005443","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Philip C O'Donnell,Leah J Welty,Ying Cheung,Krissie Fernandez Smith,Maria Rodriguez
OBJECTIVEEvaluators who assess competency to stand trial in juvenile court may be asked to opine about the likelihood that incompetent youth will be remediated and the necessary services for remediation. We used data obtained from initial competency evaluations to examine how demographic, legal, diagnostic, and competency-related knowledge and abilities predicted remediation of incompetent youth.HYPOTHESESWe hypothesized that most incompetent youth would be remediated within 1 year and that youth with intellectual disability would be less likely to be remediated than youth without this diagnosis.METHODWe coded data from deidentified competency to stand trial evaluations and court records for 103 youths. The jurisdiction where data were collected sets a 1-year timeframe for remediation, but services may be extended if there is a probability the youth will eventually become competent. We used survival analyses to identify predictors of remediation, both within 1 year and at any point thereafter.RESULTSMost (72%) incompetent youth were remediated. Prior arrest, inpatient level of care, and knowledge of court-related information were associated with remediation within 1 year. Intellectual disability was not a significant diagnostic predictor of remediation. Youth with depressive or mood symptoms and substance misuse were more likely to be remediated within 1 year than those without these conditions. Three quarters of the youth who forensic evaluators opined were "likely" to be remediated were remediated. Among youth who evaluators opined were "unlikely" to be remediated or gave an "uncertain" opinion, 57% were not remediated.CONCLUSIONSYouth with intellectual disability were not less likely to be remediated in our sample; however, our findings suggest that baseline court-related knowledge is associated with successful remediation. Youth who received inpatient services were more likely to be remediated than those who received outpatient services, which may reflect the structure and intensity of each service within this jurisdiction. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
{"title":"Factors associated with the timing and success of remediation of youth found incompetent to stand trial in juvenile court.","authors":"Philip C O'Donnell,Leah J Welty,Ying Cheung,Krissie Fernandez Smith,Maria Rodriguez","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000653","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000653","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVEEvaluators who assess competency to stand trial in juvenile court may be asked to opine about the likelihood that incompetent youth will be remediated and the necessary services for remediation. We used data obtained from initial competency evaluations to examine how demographic, legal, diagnostic, and competency-related knowledge and abilities predicted remediation of incompetent youth.HYPOTHESESWe hypothesized that most incompetent youth would be remediated within 1 year and that youth with intellectual disability would be less likely to be remediated than youth without this diagnosis.METHODWe coded data from deidentified competency to stand trial evaluations and court records for 103 youths. The jurisdiction where data were collected sets a 1-year timeframe for remediation, but services may be extended if there is a probability the youth will eventually become competent. We used survival analyses to identify predictors of remediation, both within 1 year and at any point thereafter.RESULTSMost (72%) incompetent youth were remediated. Prior arrest, inpatient level of care, and knowledge of court-related information were associated with remediation within 1 year. Intellectual disability was not a significant diagnostic predictor of remediation. Youth with depressive or mood symptoms and substance misuse were more likely to be remediated within 1 year than those without these conditions. Three quarters of the youth who forensic evaluators opined were \"likely\" to be remediated were remediated. Among youth who evaluators opined were \"unlikely\" to be remediated or gave an \"uncertain\" opinion, 57% were not remediated.CONCLUSIONSYouth with intellectual disability were not less likely to be remediated in our sample; however, our findings suggest that baseline court-related knowledge is associated with successful remediation. Youth who received inpatient services were more likely to be remediated than those who received outpatient services, which may reflect the structure and intensity of each service within this jurisdiction. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2026-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145986267","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Supplemental Material for Virtually the Same? A Comparison Between In-Person and Virtual Mock Jury Deliberations","authors":"","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000643.supp","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000643.supp","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2026-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145993310","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Cassandra A Bailey,Mia M Ricardo,London Samson,Zachary Mellema,Matthew Boles,Ahmad Adi,Emily Rybak
OBJECTIVEWhile competency to proceed (CTP) has been clearly defined in criminal courts since 1960, it remains a relatively novel concept in immigration court (IC). In 2011, the Executive Office for Immigration Review issued a decision that IC Judges must take measures to determine whether an immigrant is CTP if there are indicia of incompetency. If incompetent, the case may continue provided there are procedural safeguards to ensure due process. Unlike criminal court, IC respondents are not provided government-funded counsel. Instead, they proceed self-represented unless they obtain an attorney through personal means, are represented pro bono, or are provided one secondary to being adjudicated incompetent to proceed. Given the potential consequences of deportation and the lack of representation for many immigrants in removal proceedings, it is imperative that mental health professionals conduct quality competence evaluations.HYPOTHESESWe did not have any a priori hypotheses as this study is descriptive in nature.METHODThe present study utilized deidentified data from 41 CTP reports in IC and coded for 54 variables related to respondent, report, and evaluation characteristics, and psycholegal opinions; all reports were double coded.RESULTSOur sample comprised respondents from 13 different countries. Results indicate CTP evaluations for IC are of highly variable quality, and many do not meet the minimum requirements as delineated in the Executive Office for Immigration Review guidelines. Only 15 reports (36.6%) fully addressed all aspects of the competency standard. Against good forensic practice, 56.1% (n = 23) of reports included prejudicial statements regarding the respondent.CONCLUSIONSOur research highlights legal distinctions between CTP in criminal court and IC, the need for improved training for evaluators in IC, and the necessity for this topic to be taught in forensic programs nationally. We finish by providing recommendations for evaluators conducting CTP evaluations for IC. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
目的：虽然自1960年以来刑事法院对诉讼能力（CTP）有了明确的定义，但在移民法院（IC）中，它仍然是一个相对较新的概念。2011年，移民审查执行办公室（Executive Office for Immigration Review）发布了一项决定，要求移民法官必须采取措施，确定有不胜任迹象的移民是否属于CTP。如果无能为力，只要有程序保障以确保正当程序，案件可继续审理。与刑事法庭不同的是，国际法院不为被告提供政府资助的律师。相反，他们会自行代理，除非他们通过个人途径获得律师，或者是无偿代理，或者是在被裁定无能力的情况下被提供一个次要代理。考虑到驱逐出境的潜在后果以及许多移民在驱逐程序中缺乏代表，心理健康专业人员必须进行质量能力评估。假设我们没有任何先验的假设，因为这项研究本质上是描述性的。方法本研究利用来自IC的41份CTP报告的去识别数据，并对与被调查者、报告、评估特征和心理意见相关的54个变量进行编码；所有的报告都是双重编码的。结果我们的样本包括来自13个不同国家的受访者。结果表明，CTP对IC的评估质量变化很大，许多不符合移民审查执行办公室指南中规定的最低要求。只有15份报告（36.6%）完全处理了能力标准的所有方面。与良好的法医实践相反，56.1% （n = 23）的报告包括对被告的偏见陈述。结论我们的研究强调了刑事法院和司法鉴定中刑事刑事鉴定的法律区别，加强司法鉴定人员培训的必要性，以及在全国司法鉴定项目中教授这一主题的必要性。最后，我们为评估人员提供了对IC进行CTP评估的建议。（PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2026 APA，版权所有）。
{"title":"A glimpse at competency to proceed evaluations for immigration court proceedings.","authors":"Cassandra A Bailey,Mia M Ricardo,London Samson,Zachary Mellema,Matthew Boles,Ahmad Adi,Emily Rybak","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000652","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000652","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVEWhile competency to proceed (CTP) has been clearly defined in criminal courts since 1960, it remains a relatively novel concept in immigration court (IC). In 2011, the Executive Office for Immigration Review issued a decision that IC Judges must take measures to determine whether an immigrant is CTP if there are indicia of incompetency. If incompetent, the case may continue provided there are procedural safeguards to ensure due process. Unlike criminal court, IC respondents are not provided government-funded counsel. Instead, they proceed self-represented unless they obtain an attorney through personal means, are represented pro bono, or are provided one secondary to being adjudicated incompetent to proceed. Given the potential consequences of deportation and the lack of representation for many immigrants in removal proceedings, it is imperative that mental health professionals conduct quality competence evaluations.HYPOTHESESWe did not have any a priori hypotheses as this study is descriptive in nature.METHODThe present study utilized deidentified data from 41 CTP reports in IC and coded for 54 variables related to respondent, report, and evaluation characteristics, and psycholegal opinions; all reports were double coded.RESULTSOur sample comprised respondents from 13 different countries. Results indicate CTP evaluations for IC are of highly variable quality, and many do not meet the minimum requirements as delineated in the Executive Office for Immigration Review guidelines. Only 15 reports (36.6%) fully addressed all aspects of the competency standard. Against good forensic practice, 56.1% (n = 23) of reports included prejudicial statements regarding the respondent.CONCLUSIONSOur research highlights legal distinctions between CTP in criminal court and IC, the need for improved training for evaluators in IC, and the necessity for this topic to be taught in forensic programs nationally. We finish by providing recommendations for evaluators conducting CTP evaluations for IC. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2026-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145956222","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
OBJECTIVEUnderstanding how sentence differentials influence plea decision making is vital to identifying when plea offers might lead to convictions that conflict with normative goals (e.g., avoiding wrongful conviction). We clarify previous findings by introducing and testing predictions of a Fuzzy-Trace Theory informed model relating plea discount to plea acceptance in mock guilty defendants and extend the work to mock innocent defendants.HYPOTHESESWe expected plea rates in guilty defendants to increase with increases in plea discount but to change more steeply when a change in plea discount created a categorically distinct change in sentence (vs. a less meaningful reduction). Innocent defendants were expected to be unresponsive to changes in plea discount until a breaking point at which the discount created a sufficient categorical difference between plea and trial sentences to compete with innocence and the values associated with it.METHODWe conducted a vignette-based experiment with 3,646 participants. We manipulated potential trial sentence (9 years, 18 years), factual guilt (guilty, innocent), and discount (nine levels; 10%-90%) in a between-subject design and asked participants to accept or reject an offer.RESULTSAs predicted, mock guilty participants were generally responsive to changes in plea discount but showed increased sensitivity at meaningfully distinct points along the range of discounts. Mock innocent participants showed a more extreme pattern. As expected, plea rates in mock innocent participants were generally unaffected by incremental changes in plea discounts but showed jumps at "break points," particularly when perceived conviction probability was high.CONCLUSIONSResults support our conceptual model of gist-based plea decision making and demonstrate important differences in cognition underlying decisions in those asked to assume guilt versus innocence. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
{"title":"Extending the Fuzzy-Trace Theory informed model of guilty plea decision making: Accounting for factual guilt and innocence.","authors":"Rebecca K Helm,Tina M Zottoli","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000654","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000654","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVEUnderstanding how sentence differentials influence plea decision making is vital to identifying when plea offers might lead to convictions that conflict with normative goals (e.g., avoiding wrongful conviction). We clarify previous findings by introducing and testing predictions of a Fuzzy-Trace Theory informed model relating plea discount to plea acceptance in mock guilty defendants and extend the work to mock innocent defendants.HYPOTHESESWe expected plea rates in guilty defendants to increase with increases in plea discount but to change more steeply when a change in plea discount created a categorically distinct change in sentence (vs. a less meaningful reduction). Innocent defendants were expected to be unresponsive to changes in plea discount until a breaking point at which the discount created a sufficient categorical difference between plea and trial sentences to compete with innocence and the values associated with it.METHODWe conducted a vignette-based experiment with 3,646 participants. We manipulated potential trial sentence (9 years, 18 years), factual guilt (guilty, innocent), and discount (nine levels; 10%-90%) in a between-subject design and asked participants to accept or reject an offer.RESULTSAs predicted, mock guilty participants were generally responsive to changes in plea discount but showed increased sensitivity at meaningfully distinct points along the range of discounts. Mock innocent participants showed a more extreme pattern. As expected, plea rates in mock innocent participants were generally unaffected by incremental changes in plea discounts but showed jumps at \"break points,\" particularly when perceived conviction probability was high.CONCLUSIONSResults support our conceptual model of gist-based plea decision making and demonstrate important differences in cognition underlying decisions in those asked to assume guilt versus innocence. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2026-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145956020","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"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：