A First Look at the Plea Deal Experiences of Juveniles Tried in Adult Court

Daftary‐Kapur, Tarika; Zottoli, Tina M.

doi:10.1080/14999013.2014.960983

Cited by 27 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although we cannot evaluate the veracity of the pleas in our sample, research indicating that as many as 20% of defendants self-reportedly enter into erroneous guilty pleas (Daftary-Kapur & Zottoli, 2014; Zottoli et al, 2016) suggests that at least some of detainees were innocent but pled guilty to escape pretrial detention. Time pressures and temporal discounting likely exacerbate the potential for erroneous pleas.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Detainees may also plead guilty to blunt the economic and familial impacts of pretrial detention (Pelvin, 2017; Rabinowitz, 2010), particularly for nonviolent defendants whom are facing less severe sanctions (Pelvin, 2017). Moreover, uncertainty about the length of pretrial detention and prosecutorial pressures to accept “exploding” pleas likely exacerbate these concerns (Daftary-Kapur & Zottoli, 2014; Edkins & Dervan, 2018; Pelvin, 2017; Rabinowitz, 2010; Zottoli et al, 2016), activating temporal discounting logics (Daftary-Kapur & Zottoli, 2014; Edkins & Dervan, 2018). Taken together, these factors produce a perfect storm for guilty pleas among detainees, compelling them to cut a quick deal with prosecutors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Time pressures and temporal discounting likely exacerbate the potential for erroneous pleas. Given that individuals’ decision-making abilities are generally subject to temporal discounting (Daftary-Kapur & Zottoli, 2014; Edkins & Dervan, 2018) and are compromised under time pressures (Starcke & Brand, 2012), it is not surprising that psychologists have linked time pressures to coercive plea deals (Redlich, Bibas, Edkins, & Madon, 2017; Redlich & Shteynberg, 2016; Redlich & Summers, 2012). Thus, the fast-paced nature of detainees’ pleas might translate into elevated wrongful conviction rates among this group.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Do Detainees Plead Guilty Faster? A Survival Analysis of Pretrial Detention and the Timing of Guilty Pleas

Petersen

2019

Criminal Justice Policy Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although numerous quantitative studies have linked pretrial detention to increased conviction rates, the precise mechanisms linking these decisions remain unclear. Qualitative studies shed light on these processes, revealing that many detainees plead guilty quickly to escape the pains of detention, including poor confinement conditions, strained work or family relations, and “dead time.” Moreover, these pressures to plead are often exacerbated by uncertain detention length, time-sensitive “exploding” plea deals, and temporal discounting. Utilizing data on felony defendants from large urban counties between 1990 and 2004, we assess whether pretrial detention accelerates the pace of guilty pleas. Survival analyses indicate that pretrial detainees plead guilty 2.86 times faster than released defendants do, suggesting that pretrial detention is a powerful prosecutorial tool. Moreover, local resources affect case processing time in ways that are consistent with the courtroom workgroup perspective. Implications for public policies and future research are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Do Detainees Plead Guilty Faster? A Survival Analysis of Pretrial Detention and the Timing of Guilty Pleas

Petersen

2019

Criminal Justice Policy Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, the plea bargain may be a one-time offer, and a decision whether to accept may need to be immediate (or nearly so) (Malloy et al, 2014; Zottoli, Daftary-Kapur, Winters, & Hogan, 2016). Furthermore, a minor may experience external pressure from his own attorney, parents, or friends to take the deal (Daftary-Kapur & Zottoli, 2014). Thus, depending on the unique situation of the adolescent, the plea bargain context straddles the line between a hot and cold context, which complicates discussions around appropriate age boundaries.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adolescents’ cognitive capacity reaches adult levels prior to their psychosocial maturity: Evidence for a “maturity gap” in a multinational, cross-sectional sample.

Icenogle

Steinberg

Duell

et al. 2019

Law and Human Behavior

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

All countries distinguish between minors and adults for various legal purposes. Recent U.S. Supreme Court cases concerning the legal status of juveniles have consulted psychological science to decide where to draw these boundaries. However, little is known about the robustness of the relevant research, because it has been conducted largely in the U.S. and other Western countries. To the extent that lawmakers look to research to guide their decisions, it is important to know how generalizable the scientific conclusions are. The present study examines two psychological phenomena relevant to legal questions about adolescent maturity: cognitive capacity, which undergirds logical thinking, and psychosocial maturity, which comprises individuals’ ability to restrain themselves in the face of emotional, exciting, or risky stimuli. Age patterns of these constructs were assessed in 5,227 individuals (50.7% female), ages 10–30 (M = 17.05, SD = 5.91) from eleven countries. Importantly, whereas cognitive capacity reached adult levels around age 16, psychosocial maturity reached adult levels beyond age 18, creating a “maturity gap” between cognitive and psychosocial development. Juveniles may be capable of deliberative decision making by age 16, but even young adults may demonstrate “immature” decision making in arousing situations. We argue it is therefore reasonable to have different age boundaries for different legal purposes: one for matters in which cognitive capacity predominates, and a later one for matters in which psychosocial maturity plays a substantial role.

show abstract

“…Although this research is still in its early stages, we are beginning to understand the decision‐making of defendants and prosecutors (Bushway, Redlich, & Norris, ; Kramer, Wolbransky, & Heilbrun, ) and the contexts in which plea decisions are made (Zottoli, Daftary‐Kapur, Winters, & Hogan, ). Studies have revealed aspects of the plea process that may undermine defendant autonomy (Edkins & Dervan, ) and have identified potential outcome disparities for vulnerable groups (Daftary‐Kapur & Zottoli, ; Edkins, ; Kutateladze, Andiloro, Johnson, & Spohn, ). These lines of inquiry have far‐reaching policy implications, and psychologists are well suited to addressing many of the pressing concerns raised by legal scholars (Redlich, Wilford, & Bushway, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

State of the States: A survey of statutory law, regulations and court rules pertaining to guilty pleas across the United States

Zottoli

Daftary‐Kapur

Edkins

et al. 2019

Behavioral Sci & The Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A psycholegal research agenda on guilty pleas is in its nascent stage. Multijurisdictional surveys of related law and policy may advance this research agenda by focusing investigators on the specifics of existing policies and motivating cross‐jurisdictional comparisons of diverse policies. We thus conducted a systematic, national survey of statutes, regulations and court rules across the United States pertaining to nine aspects of the guilty plea process, including sentencing differentials, collateral consequences and waiver of rights, which have been identified in existing legal and psycholegal research and commentary. Following a discussion of these issues, including legal concerns and existing research findings, we present the results of our systematic survey. We supplement this review with a non‐systematic sampling of appellate case law. Broadly, there was notable diversity in whether and how jurisdictions approached these issues. We discuss general and specific implications of our findings for future research, emphasizing the importance of data on actual policies and procedures to the design of studies that may contribute to evidence‐based criminal justice policy.

show abstract

A First Look at the Plea Deal Experiences of Juveniles Tried in Adult Court

Cited by 27 publications

References 30 publications

Do Detainees Plead Guilty Faster? A Survival Analysis of Pretrial Detention and the Timing of Guilty Pleas

Do Detainees Plead Guilty Faster? A Survival Analysis of Pretrial Detention and the Timing of Guilty Pleas

Adolescents’ cognitive capacity reaches adult levels prior to their psychosocial maturity: Evidence for a “maturity gap” in a multinational, cross-sectional sample.

State of the States: A survey of statutory law, regulations and court rules pertaining to guilty pleas across the United States

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About