The “Partial Innocence” Effect: False Guilty Pleas to Partially Unethical Behaviors

Cardenas, Stephanie; Sanchez, Patricia Y.; Kassin, Saul M.

doi:10.1177/01461672231185639

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Regardless of whether they met this definition, all defendants in this sample were still hypothetically involved in a car crash that resulted in another person’s death. Therefore, it is possible that innocence did not exert effects as strong as they could have been in other scenarios because innocent defendants might still have felt subjectively or partially guilty of the accusation, which has its own unique implications (Cardenas et al, 2023). It is possible, and perhaps even likely, that this limitation led us to underestimate differences between innocent and guilty defendants in our results both for plea decisions and for perceptions of voluntariness.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An offer you cannot refuse: Plea offer size affects innocent but not guilty defendants' perceptions of voluntariness.

Fessinger,

Kovera

2023

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: We examined whether various plea outcomes-including sentence reduction size (smaller, larger), type (traditional guilty plea, Alford plea), and frame (plea discount, trial penalty)-differentially affected innocent and guilty defendants' perceptions of the voluntariness of their guilty pleas. Hypotheses: We hypothesized (1) guilty defendants would rate guilty pleas as more voluntary than would innocent defendants; (2) defendants would rate larger sentence reductions either as more voluntary than smaller sentence reductions because they feel more fair or as less voluntary because they feel harder to reject; (3) defendants would rate guilty pleas as more voluntary when the plea offer was framed as a discount compared with a penalty; (4) penalty framing would differentially affect defendants offered large versus small sentence reductions; and (5) Alford pleas would differentially affect guilty versus innocent defendants. Method: Adults from Qualtrics Research Panels (N = 1,518; M age = 59.22 years; 52% male; 83% White, non-Hispanic) played the role of a defendant in a simulated plea decision-making process. They were either innocent or guilty of the accusation. The prosecutor offered them a plea deal that varied in sentence reduction size (smaller, versus larger), type (traditional versus Alford plea), and frame (plea discount versus trial penalty). Participants then decided how to plead and rated the voluntariness of the decision-making process. Results: Plea outcomes affected innocent and guilty defendants in slightly different ways. Innocent and guilty defendants were less likely to plead guilty when the plea offer had a smaller compared with a larger sentence reduction. However, innocent defendants were less likely to plead guilty overall, required more prompting from their defense attorney to plead guilty, and rated the plea decision-making process as less voluntary than did guilty defendants. Innocent defendants also rated the plea decision-making process as less voluntary when offered a smaller compared with larger sentence reduction and when they were offered an Alford plea compared with a traditional guilty plea. Framing the plea offer as a discount or a penalty did not affect defendants' perceptions of voluntariness. Conclusion: Variations in plea outcomes affect defendants' perceptions of voluntariness. Moreover, at least some courts' definitions of voluntariness do not align with how laypeople-and thus, possible defendantsview the same construct. Public Significance StatementInnocent and guilty defendants can be persuaded to plead guilty by their defense attorneys but might feel as though their decision is less voluntary as a result. Courts need to construct a comprehensive and clear definition of "voluntary pleas" that can be used to ensure that defendants make their own plea decisions and are not pressured or coerced by the criminal justice process. More research on this topic can help policymakers construct a scientifically informed definition.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An offer you cannot refuse: Plea offer size affects innocent but not guilty defendants' perceptions of voluntariness.

Fessinger,

Kovera

2023

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2 predominantly supportive, citations [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]). It is nonetheless not without its weaknesses nor its detractors.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Belief-Consistent Information Processing’ vs. ‘Coherence-Based Reasoning’: Pragmatic Frameworks for Exposing Common Cognitive Biases in Intelligence Analysis

Barrows,

Ellison

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aileen Oeberst and Roland Imhoff’s remarkable paper (Perspectives on Psychological Science 2023; 18: 1464-87). should be compulsory reading for all intelligence analysts. It offers a tantalisingly parsimonious explanation comprising the combination of strongly held prior 'beliefs' coupled with subsequent 'belief-consistent information processing' (akin to confirmation bias) - an explanation that simplifies understanding of a vast array of cognitive biases, and thereby suggests that all of these might be attenuated through the application of accessible analytical and assessment practices. What this means for intelligence analysis will be determined by the explicit and implicit 'beliefs' (or, more generally, ‘value[s]’) attributed to any evidence available, and any insight generated, to reduce decision-makers’ uncertainty and unsubstantiated certainty, and thereby offer them future advantage. Analysts are well aware that different sources of evidence (whether empirical, theoretical or entirely speculative) can assign different types and amounts of ‘prior value’ to the information available for intelligence analysis and assessment. Acknowledging such value as a potential driver of subsequent confirmation bias should help analysts guard against any inherent tendency to preference evidence solely on the basis that this was initially considered most ‘valuable’. Instead they should subject all evidence and all insight – regardless of perceived ‘value’ – to a consistent battery of systematic, rigorous and robust evaluation.

show abstract

The “Partial Innocence” Effect: False Guilty Pleas to Partially Unethical Behaviors

Cited by 2 publications

References 61 publications

An offer you cannot refuse: Plea offer size affects innocent but not guilty defendants' perceptions of voluntariness.

An offer you cannot refuse: Plea offer size affects innocent but not guilty defendants' perceptions of voluntariness.

‘Belief-Consistent Information Processing’ vs. ‘Coherence-Based Reasoning’: Pragmatic Frameworks for Exposing Common Cognitive Biases in Intelligence Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About