Department of Psychology, Florida International University.
Faculty of Social Science and Humanities, Ontario Tech University.
Law Hum Behav. 2020 Jun;44(3):209-222. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000371. Epub 2020 May 18.
Interested adults, such as parents and attorneys, may pose as safeguards against juveniles' vulnerabilities during custodial interrogations; yet, the trial-level ramifications of their presence are unknown. The current research examined mock jurors' perceptions and case decisions after they read about disputed juvenile confession evidence elicited in the presence of an interested adult.
We hypothesized that when reading about a voluntary confession (vs. coerced or none), participants would be more likely to convict, find the defendant vulnerable, and view his interrogation less negatively. When an interested adult (parent or attorney) was present, we anticipated an increase in convictions, lower vulnerability perceptions, and less negative views of the interrogation, and especially so when the adult encouraged the juvenile to speak.
Jury-eligible participants in Study 1 (N = 435) and Study 2 (N = 673) read a case about a 15-year-old male charged with murder and then completed a post case questionnaire. We manipulated confession type (coerced, voluntary, none) in both studies, interested adult's mere presence (parent, attorney, no adult) in Study 1, and adult advice (parent/attorney prompting the defendant to keep quiet or speak) in Study 2.
Overall, findings demonstrated higher conviction rates when there was a voluntary confession (vs. coerced or none). Study 1 revealed that a parent's or attorney's presence inflated conviction rates, and Study 2 demonstrated that adults' advice did not affect convictions or perceptions.
Interested adults' presence during juvenile interrogations seems to legitimize confession evidence instead of protecting juveniles at the trial level. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
有兴趣的成年人，如父母和律师，可能会在监护讯问中充当保护未成年人免受伤害的角色；然而，他们在场对审判的影响尚不清楚。目前的研究考察了模拟陪审员在阅读有关有争议的未成年人口供证据后的看法和案件判决，这些证据是在有兴趣的成年人在场的情况下获得的。
我们假设，当阅读自愿认罪（与被迫或没有认罪相比）时，参与者更有可能定罪，认为被告易受伤害，并对审讯的看法不那么消极。当有兴趣的成年人（父母或律师）在场时，我们预计定罪率会增加，对被告易受伤害的看法会降低，对审讯的看法会不那么消极，尤其是当成年人鼓励被告发言时。
研究 1（N=435）和研究 2（N=673）的陪审团合格参与者阅读了一个关于一名 15 岁男性被控谋杀的案件，然后完成了一份案例后问卷。我们在两项研究中都操纵了口供类型（被迫、自愿、没有），在研究 1 中操纵了有兴趣的成年人的单纯存在（父母、律师、没有成年人），在研究 2 中操纵了成年人的建议（父母/律师提示被告保持沉默或发言）。
总体而言，当存在自愿认罪时（与被迫或没有认罪相比），定罪率更高。研究 1 表明，父母或律师的存在会提高定罪率，而研究 2 表明，成年人的建议不会影响定罪或看法。
在青少年审讯中，有兴趣的成年人的存在似乎使口供证据合法化，而不是在审判层面上保护青少年。（美国心理协会，2020）。
