Kassin S M, Neumann K
Department of Psychology, Williams College, Williamstown, MA 01267, USA.
Law Hum Behav. 1997 Oct;21(5):469-84. doi: 10.1023/a:1024871622490.
In Arizona v. Fulminante (1991), a U.S. Supreme Court majority stated that confessions are similar to, not fundamentally different from, other types of evidence. To evaluate this claim, three mock juror studies compared the impact of confessions to other common forms of evidence. In Experiment 1, participants read summaries of four criminal trials (murder, rape, assault, theft), each of which contained a confession, an eyewitness identification, character testimony, or none of the above. Significantly, the confessions produced the highest conviction rates. In Experiments 2 and 3, participants read a murder or assault trial containing all three types of evidence and made a series of midtrial judgments. Results indicated that the confession was seen as the most incriminating, followed by the eyewitness and character testimony. Although the comparisons we made are limited in certain respects, our findings suggest that confessions are uniquely potent.
在亚利桑那州诉富尔米南特案（1991年）中，美国最高法院的多数意见指出，供述与其他类型的证据相似，并无根本区别。为了评估这一说法，三项模拟陪审员研究比较了供述与其他常见证据形式的影响。在实验1中，参与者阅读了四起刑事审判（谋杀、强奸、袭击、盗窃）的摘要，每起审判都包含一份供述、一份目击证人指认、品格证言，或者上述都没有。值得注意的是，供述产生了最高的定罪率。在实验2和3中，参与者阅读了包含所有三种证据类型的谋杀或袭击审判，并做出了一系列审判中期的判断。结果表明，供述被视为最具罪证力的，其次是目击证人和品格证言。尽管我们所做的比较在某些方面存在局限性，但我们的研究结果表明，供述具有独特的强大作用。
