Law and Human Behavior最新文献

Objective: Although in-court identifications provide less evidence of a defendant's guilt than even the most poorly conducted out-of-court identification procedures, they are more likely to be admitted into evidence. The current work examined the effect of an in-court identification on juror decisions and whether exposure to a suggestive out-of-court identification would be less prejudicial than exposure to an in-court identification. Hypotheses: We predicted that exposure to an in-court identification would increase the likelihood that participants would render guilty verdicts. We also predicted that in the presence of an in-court identification, participants would be less likely to convict and rate the eyewitness less favorably when they viewed a poor prior lineup than when they viewed no prior lineup or a good prior lineup. Method: Participants (N = 422 following exclusions) watched a mock criminal trial that varied the nature of the out-of-court identification (none, poor prior lineup, good prior lineup) and whether the eyewitness identified the defendant during trial (present, not present). Results: Both in-court and out-of-court identifications independently affected verdicts, irrespective of whether the out-of-court identification was good or poor. In-court identifications, despite having little to no evidentiary value, increased the likelihood that witnesses rendered guilty verdicts. In contrast, participants were sensitive to variations in the quality of the out-of-court procedure; participants who heard evidence about an identification obtained through a suggestive out-of-court lineup rated the prosecution's case as weaker and the identification as less fair than participants who heard evidence about an identification obtained through a nonsuggestive out-of-court lineup. Conclusions: Although participants rendered judgments that reflected variations in the quality of the out-of-court procedure, in-court identifications increased the likelihood that participants voted guilty, despite their having little to no evidentiary value. Moreover, the in-court procedure bolstered the perceived fairness of the poor prior identification procedure. Barring in-court identifications from the courtroom may be the best way to ensure conviction of the guilty and protection of the innocent. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: Behavioral threat assessment and management (BTAM) is a form of violence risk assessment that has been widely adopted in U.S. public schools. However, there are concerns that the involvement of law enforcement officers in schools on BTAM teams could lead to criminalization of student misbehavior and exacerbate disparities in arrests for students of color and students with disabilities. This study investigated school-based arrests, court charges, and incarcerations for a sample of 18,411 Florida students in 1,646 schools who received a threat assessment using the Comprehensive School Threat Assessment Guidelines. Hypotheses: Consistent with prior studies, we hypothesized that law enforcement actions would have a low prevalence and there would be no disparities associated with race/ethnicity, family income, or disability status. Method: A series of Bayesian multilevel logistic regression models was estimated to evaluate whether law enforcement actions (arrest, charge, incarceration) varied by school-level characteristics and student-level regressors (demographics and threat classification). Results: Approximately 1% of students received a law enforcement action. Law enforcement actions were associated most strongly with student grade and seriousness of their threat. There was evidence of equitable law enforcement actions for student characteristics of race/ethnicity, family income, and disability status. Conclusion: These results are consistent with prior studies in smaller samples of Virginia schools. This study contributes to the policy debate over the role of law enforcement officers in schools by showing that schools using threat assessment teams with officers did not generate high rates of law enforcement actions or inequitable outcomes often observed for disadvantaged student groups. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).