当前位置: X-MOL 学术J. Forensic Psychol. Practi. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Sensitivity to Psychologically Coercive Interrogations: A Comparison of Instructions and Expert Testimony to Improve Juror Decision-Making
Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice Pub Date : 2021-02-23 , DOI: 10.1080/24732850.2021.1892438
Angela M. Jones 1 , Ashley M. Blinkhorn 1 , Alexis M. Hawley 1
Affiliation  

ABSTRACT

Confession evidence is powerful to jurors, even when obtained using psychologically coercive means. To assist jurors in evaluating confession evidence, courts may provide instructions or expert testimony. The current study examined the relative effectiveness of these two safeguards. Participants were randomly assigned to read about a confession that either did or did not result from the use of psychologically coercive (but legal) tactics and received either instructions, expert testimony, or no safeguard. Jurors were sensitive to psychologically coercive interrogation tactics on their own, reducing perceptions of guilt, evidence strength, detective credibility, and confession voluntariness when interrogation pressure was high. Instructions made jurors skeptical of both confessions relative to expert testimony, and in some cases, compared to the absence of any safeguard. Sensitivity was not observed for either safeguard. Results suggest jurors’ knowledge of psychologically coercive interrogation tactics is improving, but effective safeguards are still needed.



中文翻译:

对心理胁迫性审讯的敏感性:指导和专家证词的比较以改善陪审员决策

摘要

供述证据对陪审员来说是强有力的,即使是通过心理胁迫手段获得的。为协助陪审员评估供述证据,法院可提供指示或专家证词。当前的研究检验了这两种保障措施的相对有效性。参与者被随机分配阅读关于使用心理胁迫(但合法)策略导致或不导致的供词,并接受指示、专家证词或没有保护措施。陪审员自身对心理胁迫性审讯策略较为敏感,当审讯压力较高时,会降低犯罪感、证据强度、侦探可信度和供认自愿性。指令使陪审员对与专家证词相关的两种供词持怀疑态度,在某些情况下,与没有任何保障措施相比。两种保护措施均未观察到敏感性。结果表明,陪审员对心理胁迫审讯策略的了解正在提高,但仍需要有效的保护措施。

更新日期:2021-02-23
down
wechat
bug