潜在的陪审员如何评估证人的信心和决定时间陈述跨越鉴定程序和不同的证人的决定

IF 1.1 4区 社会学 Q3 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Psychology Crime & Law Pub Date : 2022-02-10 DOI:10.1080/1068316X.2022.2038156
Curt A. Carlson, Robert F. Lockamyeir, Alyssa R. Jones, Jacob A. Hemby
{"title":"潜在的陪审员如何评估证人的信心和决定时间陈述跨越鉴定程序和不同的证人的决定","authors":"Curt A. Carlson, Robert F. Lockamyeir, Alyssa R. Jones, Jacob A. Hemby","doi":"10.1080/1068316X.2022.2038156","DOIUrl":null,"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":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":null,\"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychology Crime & Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2038156\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology Crime & Law","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2038156","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

基于其在刑事司法系统中的重要性,了解陪审员如何解释照片阵列和证人陈述形式的证人鉴定证据至关重要。我们解决了几个尚未解决的问题,包括:潜在陪审员如何解读目击者关于信心和决策速度的陈述?公平的指认比有偏见的指认更可信吗?如果目击证人选择了顶替者或者拒绝指认呢?对美国人口统计学上的大量不同样本进行的三个实验提供了三个新颖的结果。首先,快速陈述(例如“我立刻认出了他”)比慢速陈述(例如“我几分钟后认出了他”)更受信任,除非它们得到低信心的支持,而速度陈述没有效果。第二,有偏见的列队通常不会被认为是有偏见的,但当他们有偏见时,嫌疑人的身份就不可信了。第三,当参与者被告知已经选择了一个替补或阵容/出场被拒绝时,信心陈述和速度陈述都没有影响他们对怀疑有罪的判断。我们建议对陪审员进行有关如何正确评估目击证人证据的教育。
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
How potential jurors evaluate eyewitness confidence and decision time statements across identification procedures and for different eyewitness decisions
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.
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
3.10
自引率
7.10%
发文量
83
期刊介绍: This journal promotes the study and application of psychological approaches to crime, criminal and civil law, and the influence of law on behavior. The content includes the aetiology of criminal behavior and studies of different offender groups; crime detection, for example, interrogation and witness testimony; courtroom studies in areas such as jury behavior, decision making, divorce and custody, and expert testimony; behavior of litigants, lawyers, judges, and court officers, both in and outside the courtroom; issues of offender management including prisons, probation, and rehabilitation initiatives; and studies of public, including the victim, reactions to crime and the legal process.
期刊最新文献
An optimal trauma-informed pathway for PTSD, complex PTSD and other mental health and psychosocial impacts of trauma in prisons: an expert consensus statement Mock jurors’ evaluations of eyewitness identification evidence based on appearance change and associated instructions A double standard in evaluating implicit threats Defense attorney perspectives about juvenile interrogations: SROs, parents, and the adolescent defendant Cultural context and sentencing: content analysis of sentencing remarks for Indigenous defendants of domestic violence in the Northern Territory, Australia
×
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