Reactions to youth crime: perceptions of accountability and competency*

Ghetti, Simona; Redlich, Allison D.

doi:10.1002/bsl.426

Cited by 60 publications

(113 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We were not interested in participant gender effects in this study, but because Stalans and Henry (1994;but not Ghetti & Redlich, 2001) found that women were more lenient than men, we conducted four separate preliminary 2 (abuse history: abused or nonabused) Â 2 (disability status: intellectually disabled or nondisabled) Â 4 (crime type: shoplifting, drug offense, self-defense murder, or aggravated murder) Â 2 (juror gender) mixed ANOVAs on all dependent measures. Only one significant gender effect emerged: a three-way interaction of gender, disability status, and crime on perceived amenability to rehabilitation, F(3, 579) ¼ 3.93, p < .01.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Jurors' perceptions of juvenile defendants: the influence of intellectual disability, abuse history, and confession evidence

Najdowski¹,

Bottoms

Vargas³

2009

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding jurors' perceptions of juvenile defendants has become increasingly important as more and more juvenile cases are being tried in adult criminal court rather than family or juvenile court. Intellectual disability and child maltreatment are overrepresented among juvenile delinquents, and juveniles (particularly disabled juveniles) are at heightened risk for falsely confessing to crimes. In two mock trial experiments, we examined the effects of disability, abuse history, and confession evidence on jurors' perceptions of a juvenile defendant across several different crime scenarios. Abused juveniles were treated more leniently than nonabused juveniles only when the juvenile's crime was motivated by self-defense against the abuser. Jurors used disability as a mitigating factor, making more lenient judgments for a disabled than a nondisabled juvenile. Jurors also completely discounted a coerced confession for a disabled juvenile, but not for a nondisabled juvenile. In fact, compared with when it was portrayed as voluntary, jurors generally discounted a juvenile's coerced confession. Implications for public policy and directions for future research are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Jurors' perceptions of juvenile defendants: the influence of intellectual disability, abuse history, and confession evidence

Najdowski¹,

Bottoms

Vargas³

2009

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whether and how participants' general beliefs relate to and differ from their judgments of a given confession in a specific case is unclear, especially a case that involved a violent crime. The nature of a crime often affects individuals' perceptions of a defendant's culpability (Ghetti & Redlich, 2001), and, in the present study, participants' general beliefs may not extend to their specific evaluations in a given case. It may be, as the study by Kassin and Sukel (1997) suggests, that, even when jurors recognize that interrogators used coercion to elicit confession evidence, this fact is not likely to temper their judgments of the defendant's guilt.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 90%

What do potential jurors know about police interrogation techniques and false confessions?

Leo

Liu

2009

Behavioral Sci & The Law

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychological police interrogation methods in America inevitably involve some level of pressure and persuasion to achieve their goal of eliciting confessions of guilt from custodial suspects. In this article, we surveyed potential jurors about their perceptions of a range of psychological interrogation techniques, the likelihood that such techniques would elicit a true confession from guilty suspects, and the likelihood that such techniques could elicit a false confession from innocent suspects. Participants recognized that these interrogation techniques may be psychologically coercive and may elicit true confessions, but believed that psychologically coercive interrogation techniques are not likely to elicit false confessions. The findings from this survey study indicate that potential jurors believe that false confessions are both counter- intuitive and unlikely, even in response to psychologically coercive interrogation techniques that have been shown to lead to false confessions from the innocent. This study provides empirical support for the idea that expert witnesses may helpfully inform jurors about the social science research on psychologically coercive interrogation methods and how and why such interrogation techniques can lead to false confessions.

show abstract

“…As implied earlier, individuals are less punitive towards younger offenders (Ghetti & Redlich, 2001;Sundt et al, 1998). Also, violent offenses are responded to more punitively than property crimes and citizens appear to be particularly sensitive to certain types of drug offenses (McCorkle, 1993).…”

Section: Source Of Attitudesmentioning

confidence: 90%

What drives punitive beliefs?: Demographic characteristics and justifications for sentencing

Payne

Gainey

Triplett

et al. 2004

Journal of Criminal Justice

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reactions to youth crime: perceptions of accountability and competency*

Cited by 60 publications

References 30 publications

Jurors' perceptions of juvenile defendants: the influence of intellectual disability, abuse history, and confession evidence

Jurors' perceptions of juvenile defendants: the influence of intellectual disability, abuse history, and confession evidence

What do potential jurors know about police interrogation techniques and false confessions?

What drives punitive beliefs?: Demographic characteristics and justifications for sentencing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About