Department of Psychology.
Criminal Justice Department.
Law Hum Behav. 2023 Apr;47(2):348-366. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000529.
Because confessions are sometimes unreliable, it is important to understand how jurors evaluate confession evidence. We conducted a content analysis testing an attribution theory model for mock jurors' discussion of coerced confession evidence in determining verdicts.
We tested exploratory hypotheses regarding mock jurors' discussion of attributions and elements of the confession. We expected that jurors' prodefense statements, external attributions (attributing the confession to coercion), and uncontrollable attributions (attributing the confession to defendant naivety) would predict more prodefense than proprosecution case judgments. We also expected that being male, politically conservative, and in support of the death penalty would predict proprosecution statements and internal attributions, which in turn would predict guilty verdicts.
Mock jurors (N = 253, M = 47 years; 65% women; 88% White, 10% Black, 1% Hispanic, 1% listed "other") read a murder trial synopsis, watched an actual coerced false confession, completed case judgments, and deliberated in juries of up to 12 members. We videotaped, transcribed, and reliably coded deliberations.
Most mock jurors (53%) rendered a guilty verdict. Participants made more prodefense than proprosecution statements, more external than internal attributions, and more internal than uncontrollable attributions. Participants infrequently mentioned various elements of the interrogation (police coercion, contamination, promises of leniency, interrogation length) and psychological consequences for the defendant. Proprosecution statements and internal attributions predicted proprosecution case judgments. Women made more prodefense and external attribution statements than men, which in turn predicted diminished guilt. Political conservatives and death penalty proponents made more proprosecution statements and internal attributions than their counterparts, respectively, which in turn predicted greater guilt.
Some jurors identified coercive elements of a false confession and rendered external attributions for a defendant's false confession (attributing the confession to the coercive interrogation) during deliberation. However, many jurors made internal attributions, attributing a defendant's false confession to his guilt-attributions that predicted juror and jury inclinations to convict an innocent defendant. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
由于供词有时不可靠，因此了解陪审员如何评估供词证据非常重要。我们进行了一项内容分析，测试了一个归因理论模型，用于模拟陪审员在确定判决时讨论强迫供词证据。
我们测试了关于模拟陪审员讨论归因和供词要素的探索性假设。我们预计，陪审员的辩护声明、外部归因（将供词归因于胁迫）和不可控归因（将供词归因于被告的天真）将预测更多的辩护而非起诉案件判断。我们还预计，男性、政治保守派和支持死刑将预测起诉声明和内部归因，而这反过来又将预测有罪判决。
模拟陪审员（N=253，M=47 岁；65%为女性；88%为白人，10%为黑人，1%为西班牙裔，1%列为“其他”）阅读了一份谋杀案审判摘要，观看了一段实际的强迫性虚假认罪，并完成了案件判断，并在最多由 12 名成员组成的陪审团中进行了审议。我们对审议进行了录像、转录和可靠编码。
大多数模拟陪审员（53%）做出有罪判决。参与者做出了更多的辩护而非起诉声明，更多的外部归因而非内部归因，以及更多的内部归因而非不可控归因。参与者很少提及审讯的各种要素（警察胁迫、污染、宽大承诺、审讯时间）和被告的心理后果。起诉声明和内部归因预测了起诉案件判断。女性比男性做出更多的辩护和外部归因声明，这反过来又预测了减少的内疚感。政治保守派和死刑支持者比他们的对应者做出了更多的起诉声明和内部归因，这反过来又预测了更大的罪责。
一些陪审员在审议期间确定了虚假供词的胁迫要素，并对被告的虚假供词做出了外部归因（将供词归因于胁迫审讯）。然而，许多陪审员做出了内部归因，将被告的虚假供词归因于他的有罪归因，这预测了陪审员和陪审团倾向于判定无辜被告有罪。（PsycInfo 数据库记录（c）2023 APA，保留所有权利）。
