弗吉尼亚州阿尔弗德认罪者的结果比传统认罪者更为严厉。

IF 2.4 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Law and Human Behavior Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1037/lhb0000580
Amy Dezember,Allison D Redlich
{"title":"弗吉尼亚州阿尔弗德认罪者的结果比传统认罪者更为严厉。","authors":"Amy Dezember,Allison D Redlich","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000580","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\r\nAlford pleas allow defendants to profess innocence while simultaneously pleading guilty. In Study 1, we addressed two research questions: (1) Does the case processing length in Alford plea cases differ from traditional guilty plea cases? and (2) Do the sentencing outcomes (i.e., length of sentence, reduction in sentence, incarceration) in Alford plea cases differ from traditional guilty plea cases? In Study 2, we explored two research questions: (1) What is the process for offering, negotiating, and accepting Alford pleas? and (2) How does the strength of evidence compare in Alford plea cases versus traditional guilty plea cases?\r\n\r\nHYPOTHESES\r\nIn Study 1, we predicted that (a) Alford plea cases would take longer to dispose of than traditional guilty plea cases, and (b) Alford plea cases would receive more beneficial sentencing outcomes (e.g., shorter sentences, larger sentence reductions) than traditional guilty plea cases. The research questions in Study 2 were exploratory; thus, we did not have a priori hypotheses.\r\n\r\nMETHOD\r\nStudy 1 is a quantitative analysis of 18 years of Virginia court administrative data, and Study 2 is a qualitative analysis of interviews with Virginia judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nIn Study 1, we found that Alford plea cases take longer to process and generally receive harsher, less favorable outcomes compared with traditional guilty pleas. In Study 2, we found that legal actors do not perceive evidence to be a driving factor in the context of Alford pleas and largely do not consider Alford pleas differently from traditional guilty pleas.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nAdditional research would be beneficial to ensure that defendants are not punished simply for insisting on their innocence. Given that almost all convictions are the result of guilty pleas, some entered without admissions of guilt, increased scholarship on traditional and Alford pleas is essential. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"55 1","pages":"262-280"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Virginia Alford plea-takers experience harsher outcomes than traditional plea-takers.\",\"authors\":\"Amy Dezember,Allison D Redlich\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/lhb0000580\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"OBJECTIVE\\r\\nAlford pleas allow defendants to profess innocence while simultaneously pleading guilty. In Study 1, we addressed two research questions: (1) Does the case processing length in Alford plea cases differ from traditional guilty plea cases? and (2) Do the sentencing outcomes (i.e., length of sentence, reduction in sentence, incarceration) in Alford plea cases differ from traditional guilty plea cases? In Study 2, we explored two research questions: (1) What is the process for offering, negotiating, and accepting Alford pleas? and (2) How does the strength of evidence compare in Alford plea cases versus traditional guilty plea cases?\\r\\n\\r\\nHYPOTHESES\\r\\nIn Study 1, we predicted that (a) Alford plea cases would take longer to dispose of than traditional guilty plea cases, and (b) Alford plea cases would receive more beneficial sentencing outcomes (e.g., shorter sentences, larger sentence reductions) than traditional guilty plea cases. The research questions in Study 2 were exploratory; thus, we did not have a priori hypotheses.\\r\\n\\r\\nMETHOD\\r\\nStudy 1 is a quantitative analysis of 18 years of Virginia court administrative data, and Study 2 is a qualitative analysis of interviews with Virginia judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys.\\r\\n\\r\\nRESULTS\\r\\nIn Study 1, we found that Alford plea cases take longer to process and generally receive harsher, less favorable outcomes compared with traditional guilty pleas. In Study 2, we found that legal actors do not perceive evidence to be a driving factor in the context of Alford pleas and largely do not consider Alford pleas differently from traditional guilty pleas.\\r\\n\\r\\nCONCLUSIONS\\r\\nAdditional research would be beneficial to ensure that defendants are not punished simply for insisting on their innocence. Given that almost all convictions are the result of guilty pleas, some entered without admissions of guilt, increased scholarship on traditional and Alford pleas is essential. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).\",\"PeriodicalId\":48230,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law and Human Behavior\",\"volume\":\"55 1\",\"pages\":\"262-280\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law and Human Behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000580\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Human Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000580","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标 阿尔弗德认罪允许被告在认罪的同时自认无辜。在研究 1 中,我们探讨了两个研究问题:(1) 阿尔弗德认罪案件的处理时间与传统认罪案件是否不同? (2) 阿尔弗德认罪案件的判决结果(即刑期、减刑、监禁)与传统认罪案件是否不同?在研究 2 中,我们探讨了两个研究问题:(1) 提出、协商和接受阿尔弗德认罪的过程是怎样的? (2) 阿尔弗德认罪案件与传统认罪案件的证据效力如何比较?在研究 1 中,我们预测 (a) 阿尔弗德认罪案件的处理时间将长于传统认罪案件;(b) 阿尔弗德认罪案件将获得更有利的量刑结果(例如,刑期更短、减刑幅度更大)、(b) 与传统的认罪案件相比,阿尔弗德认罪案件会得到更有利的判决结果(如更短的刑期、更大的减刑幅度)。研究 1 对弗吉尼亚州法院 18 年的行政数据进行了定量分析,研究 2 则对弗吉尼亚州法官、检察官和辩护律师的访谈进行了定性分析。结果在研究 1 中,我们发现与传统认罪案件相比,阿尔弗德认罪案件的处理时间更长,通常会得到更严厉、更不利的结果。在研究 2 中,我们发现法律行为者并不认为证据是阿尔弗德答辩的驱动因素,在很大程度上也没有将阿尔弗德答辩与传统的认罪答辩区别对待。鉴于几乎所有的定罪都是认罪的结果,其中有些是在不认罪的情况下作出的,因此增加对传统认罪和阿尔弗德认罪的研究至关重要。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Virginia Alford plea-takers experience harsher outcomes than traditional plea-takers.
OBJECTIVE Alford pleas allow defendants to profess innocence while simultaneously pleading guilty. In Study 1, we addressed two research questions: (1) Does the case processing length in Alford plea cases differ from traditional guilty plea cases? and (2) Do the sentencing outcomes (i.e., length of sentence, reduction in sentence, incarceration) in Alford plea cases differ from traditional guilty plea cases? In Study 2, we explored two research questions: (1) What is the process for offering, negotiating, and accepting Alford pleas? and (2) How does the strength of evidence compare in Alford plea cases versus traditional guilty plea cases? HYPOTHESES In Study 1, we predicted that (a) Alford plea cases would take longer to dispose of than traditional guilty plea cases, and (b) Alford plea cases would receive more beneficial sentencing outcomes (e.g., shorter sentences, larger sentence reductions) than traditional guilty plea cases. The research questions in Study 2 were exploratory; thus, we did not have a priori hypotheses. METHOD Study 1 is a quantitative analysis of 18 years of Virginia court administrative data, and Study 2 is a qualitative analysis of interviews with Virginia judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. RESULTS In Study 1, we found that Alford plea cases take longer to process and generally receive harsher, less favorable outcomes compared with traditional guilty pleas. In Study 2, we found that legal actors do not perceive evidence to be a driving factor in the context of Alford pleas and largely do not consider Alford pleas differently from traditional guilty pleas. CONCLUSIONS Additional research would be beneficial to ensure that defendants are not punished simply for insisting on their innocence. Given that almost all convictions are the result of guilty pleas, some entered without admissions of guilt, increased scholarship on traditional and Alford pleas is essential. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
8.00%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Law and Human Behavior, the official journal of the American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association, is a multidisciplinary forum for the publication of articles and discussions of issues arising out of the relationships between human behavior and the law, our legal system, and the legal process. This journal publishes original research, reviews of past research, and theoretical studies from professionals in criminal justice, law, psychology, sociology, psychiatry, political science, education, communication, and other areas germane to the field.
期刊最新文献
Automated question type coding of forensic interviews and trial testimony in child sexual abuse cases. Who questions the legitimacy of law? A latent profile analysis using national data in China. Police-induced confessions, 2.0: Risk factors and recommendations. What risk assessment tools can be used with men convicted of child sexual exploitation material offenses? Recommendations from a review of current research. Law and Human Behavior: Status update and new initiatives.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1