Law and Human Behavior最新文献

Objective: Black people are disproportionately targeted and disadvantaged in the criminal legal system. We tested whether Black exonerees are similarly disadvantaged by the stigma of wrongful conviction.

Hypotheses: In Experiment 1, we predicted that the stigma of wrongful conviction would be greater for Black than White exonerees. After finding the opposite pattern, we conducted two experiments to investigate the psychological underpinnings of this counterintuitive effect-specifically, whether it was driven by attempts to appear unprejudiced and/or beliefs regarding the legal system bias that Black and White exonerees face.

Method: In Experiment 1, we unobtrusively measured non-Black participants' behavioral reactions to an anticipated meeting with a Black or White exoneree or businessman. In Experiment 2, participants completed measures that assessed their motivation to appear unprejudiced and then, in a separate session, evaluated a Black or White exoneree and reported their beliefs about the legal system bias faced by the exoneree. Experiment 3 was a partial replication of Experiment 2. In Experiments 2 and 3, we examined data from both non-Black and Black participants.

Results: Non-Black participants in Experiment 1 stigmatized the White exoneree, d = -0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) [-0.72, 0.10], but not the Black exoneree, d = 0.44, 95% CI [0.04, 0.83]. Experiments 2 and 3 replicated this finding, showing that the effect was mediated by the belief that Black exonerees faced greater legal system bias than White exonerees (Experiment 2: B = 0.21, SE = 0.06, 95% CI [0.11, 0.33]; Experiment 3: B = 0.35, SE = 0.09, 95% CI [0.19, 0.55]). Our results also suggested that Black individuals react more favorably to Black than White exonerees, potentially because of their beliefs regarding legal system bias.

Conclusions: People may react more favorably to Black than White exonerees because of the belief that Black exonerees face greater injustices within the legal system. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: State of Washington v. Sisouvanh (2012) was the first case in which an appellate court asserted the need for cultural competence in competency-to-stand-trial evaluations. A court reiterated this need in State of Washington v. Ortiz-Abrego (2017). Research in forensic psychology seldom addressed cultural considerations in pretrial evaluations until this past decade, but the growing body of literature pales in comparison to the work found in clinical and counseling psychology. Most of the current literature acknowledges the lack of professionally sanctioned practice guidelines and makes valuable suggestions regarding how to address cultural factors that are relevant to the requisite capacities of legal competency. Yet, none of this research addresses potential risks incurred by the evaluators who attempt to incorporate these suggestions into practice or acknowledges the possible incompatibility between forensic and cultural competency principles.

Hypotheses: The authors posit there may be areas of incompatability, or tension, between the tenets of forensic psychology and cultural competency.

Method: To examine this potential incompatibility, we reviewed legal cases with cultural implications, addressed recent developments regarding cultural "incompetence," and conducted an overview of cultural competency in clinical and forensic psychology.

Results: Comparing general principles of forensic psychology with those of cultural responsiveness and humility, we found that questions emerged regarding the potential philosophical conflicts as well as risks that may be incurred by individual evaluators in legal settings.

Conclusions: The resultant dilemma sets the stage for pragmatic suggestions regarding communication, assessment, and diagnosis. Finally, we emphasize the need for sanctioned practice guidelines. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Objectives: Prosecutors often use race as a basis for excluding Black jurors in cases with Black defendants. The current research tested whether this practice influences juror attitudes (Study 1). It also tested an intervention to prevent racially biased jury selection (Study 2).

Hypotheses: We predicted that participants exposed to the exclusion of Black prospective jurors would have more negative feelings compared with those who were not exposed to such exclusions (Study 1). We also predicted that participants taking on the role of a prosecutor would be more likely to exclude a Black (vs. White) prospective juror in a case with a Black defendant and that warnings against race-based decisions would result in elaborate race-neutral rationales for the exclusions (Study 2).

Method: In Study 1 (N = 228), participants witnessed a simulated jury selection process. For half of the participants, Black jurors were differentially excluded. In Study 2 (N = 298), participants selected between a Black and a White prospective juror for a case with a Black defendant.

Results: Exposure to race-based exclusions negatively impacted perceptions of fairness and emotional responses, especially for Black participants (Study 1). Participants were more likely to exclude a Black juror (vs. White juror) but gave race-neutral rationales for their decisions. The effect of race on juror selection was eliminated when participants were warned against using race as a basis for excluding jurors (Study 2).

Conclusions: Race-motivated exclusions affect not only Black defendants, by depriving them of their right to a jury of their peers, but also the jurors who remain to deliberate. A warning could be a viable intervention for curbing the influence of race on prosecutorial decisions during jury selection. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: Prior research consistently demonstrates that defendants convicted at trial are sentenced more harshly than those who plead guilty. Additionally, a vast literature has shown that Black and Hispanic defendants, and especially young minority males, are particularly disadvantaged in sentencing, though these effects may be conditional on various legal and case-processing factors. However, it remains unclear how the mode of conviction might moderate these inequalities according to offenders' combined race/ethnicity, gender, and age.

Hypotheses: I expected that mode of conviction would moderate the joint effects of race/ethnicity, gender, and age on the imposition of a sentence to prison and on sentence length such that young minority males convicted at trial would receive more severe punishments than members of other subgroups.

Method: The analyses made use of data on defendants sentenced for noncapital felony crimes in Florida circuit courts over a 12-year period (N = 1,076,500). Hurdle regression models and marginal effects analysis were used.

Results: Greater sentencing disparities in absolute as well as relative terms between young minority males and other race/ethnicity, gender, and age subgroups were found among trial cases than among plea cases. Further, Black and Hispanic males were subjected to trial taxes that were substantially larger than those of other subgroups.

Conclusions: These findings suggest that defendants who plead guilty are generally sentenced according to predictable and standardized "going rates" of punishment, whereas the enhanced discretion afforded judges in trial cases as well as racialized "bad facts" about defendants that emerge at trial may drive inequalities in punishment. Thus, extralegal sentencing disparities tied to mode of conviction are an area in which criminal justice reform efforts might be directed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: Our goal was to develop a framework to test for implicit racial bias in discretionary decisions made by community supervision agents in conditions with increasing information ambiguity.

Hypotheses: We reasoned that as in-person contact decreases, community supervision officers' specific knowledge of clients would be replaced by heuristics that lead to racially disproportionate outcomes in higher discretion events. Officers' implicit biases would lead to disproportionately higher technical violation rates among Black community corrections' clients when they have less personal contact, but we expected no analogous increase in nondiscretionary decisions.

Method: Using data from Black and White clients entering probation and postrelease supervision in North Carolina from 2012 through 2016, we estimated the difference in racial disparities in discretionary versus nondiscretionary decisions across five levels of supervision. We evaluated the robustness of our main fixed-effects model using an alternative regression discontinuity design.

Results: Racial disparities in discretionary decisions grew as supervision intensity decreased, and the bias was larger for women than men. There was no similar pattern of increased disparity for nondiscretionary decisions.

Conclusions: Criminal justice system actors have a great deal of discretion, particularly in how they deal with less serious criminal behavior. Although decentralized decisions are foundational to the function of the criminal justice system, they provide an opportunity for implicit bias to seep in. Shortcuts and mental heuristics are more influential when the decision-maker's mental resources are already strained-for instance, if someone is tired, distracted, or overworked. Therefore, limiting discretion and increasing oversight and accountability may reduce the impact of implicit bias on criminal justice system outcomes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).