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

IF 2.4 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Melanie B Fessinger, Margaret Bull Kovera
{"title":"An offer you cannot refuse: Plea offer size affects innocent but not guilty defendants' perceptions of voluntariness.","authors":"Melanie B Fessinger, Margaret Bull Kovera","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000548","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Adults from Qualtrics Research Panels (N = 1,518; M<sub>age</sub> = 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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 defendants-view the same construct. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"47 6","pages":"619-633"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Human Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000548","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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; Mage = 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 defendants-view the same construct. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

你无法拒绝的提议:认罪提议的大小会影响无罪而非有罪被告人对自愿性的认知。
目的:我们研究了各种认罪结果--包括减刑幅度(较小、较大)、类型(传统认罪、阿尔弗德认罪)和框架(认罪折扣、审判处罚)--是否会不同程度地影响无辜被告和有罪被告对认罪自愿性的看法:我们假设:(1) 与无罪被告相比,有罪被告会认为认罪更自愿;(2) 与较小的减刑相比,被告会认为较大的减刑更自愿,因为他们感觉更公平,或者认为较小的减刑更不自愿,因为他们感觉更难拒绝;(3) 与刑罚相比,如果辩诉提议被设定为折扣,被告人会认为认罪更自愿;(4) 刑罚设定对减刑幅度大的被告人和减刑幅度小的被告人的影响不同;(5) Alford 辩诉对有罪被告人和无罪被告人的影响不同。研究方法:来自 Qualtrics 研究小组的成年人(人数 = 1,518;年龄 = 59.22 岁;52% 为男性;83% 为白人,非西班牙裔)在模拟认罪求情决策过程中扮演被告。他们要么是无辜的,要么是有罪的。检察官向他们提出不同减刑幅度(较小与较大)、类型(传统认罪与阿尔弗德认罪)和框架(认罪折扣与审判处罚)的认罪协议。然后,参与者决定如何认罪,并对决策过程的自愿性进行评分:认罪结果对无罪被告和有罪被告的影响略有不同。当辩诉提议的减刑幅度小于减刑幅度大时,无辜被告和有罪被告认罪的可能性都较小。然而,与有罪被告人相比,无罪被告人总体上认罪的可能性较低,需要辩护律师更多的提示才能认罪,并且对认罪决定过程的自愿性评价较低。与传统的认罪相比,无罪被告在获得较小减刑幅度时,与获得较大减刑幅度时相比,以及在获得阿尔弗德认罪协议时,对认罪求情决策过程的自愿性评价也较低。将认罪协议描述为减刑或处罚并不影响被告对自愿性的看法:抗辩结果的不同会影响被告对自愿性的认知。此外,至少有些法院对自愿性的定义与普通人--也就是可能的被告人--对同一概念的看法并不一致。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
8.00%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Law and Human Behavior, the official journal of the American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association, is a multidisciplinary forum for the publication of articles and discussions of issues arising out of the relationships between human behavior and the law, our legal system, and the legal process. This journal publishes original research, reviews of past research, and theoretical studies from professionals in criminal justice, law, psychology, sociology, psychiatry, political science, education, communication, and other areas germane to the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信