An experimental study on the effect of prosecutorial Brady violations on confidence in exonerating individuals wrongfully convicted of murder

IF 1.8 2区 社会学 Q2 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
John C. Navarro, Michael A. Hansen
{"title":"An experimental study on the effect of prosecutorial Brady violations on confidence in exonerating individuals wrongfully convicted of murder","authors":"John C. Navarro, Michael A. Hansen","doi":"10.1007/s11292-024-09658-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Objectives</h3><p>While several contributing factors can lead to wrongful convictions, it is unclear whether the public perceives these methods of exonerating convicted murderers differently.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>We distributed an online survey to a nationally representative sample of 1193 individuals. After reading a prompt about the increased attention and production of digital media on wrongful convictions and exonerations, respondents were randomized into two conditions to evaluate their confidence in the exoneration of a convicted murderer across four contributing factors. The experimental condition contained the addition of prosecutorial misconduct in withholding evidence.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>Public confidence in wrongful conviction exonerations varied across the four contributing factors, with DNA evidence consistently held in the highest regard. Confidence then followed a descending order, beginning with police-induced forced confessions, false testimonies, and eyewitness statements, with all three showing increased confidence ratings when prosecutorial misconduct was involved.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions</h3><p>The public distinguishes between contributing factors in murder exonerations. DNA is the most trusted evidence for murder exonerations regardless of misconduct, while confidence in the other contributing factors to exonerate murderers significantly increases when prosecutorial misconduct is present.</p>","PeriodicalId":47684,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Criminology","volume":"51 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Criminology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-024-09658-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

While several contributing factors can lead to wrongful convictions, it is unclear whether the public perceives these methods of exonerating convicted murderers differently.

Methods

We distributed an online survey to a nationally representative sample of 1193 individuals. After reading a prompt about the increased attention and production of digital media on wrongful convictions and exonerations, respondents were randomized into two conditions to evaluate their confidence in the exoneration of a convicted murderer across four contributing factors. The experimental condition contained the addition of prosecutorial misconduct in withholding evidence.

Results

Public confidence in wrongful conviction exonerations varied across the four contributing factors, with DNA evidence consistently held in the highest regard. Confidence then followed a descending order, beginning with police-induced forced confessions, false testimonies, and eyewitness statements, with all three showing increased confidence ratings when prosecutorial misconduct was involved.

Conclusions

The public distinguishes between contributing factors in murder exonerations. DNA is the most trusted evidence for murder exonerations regardless of misconduct, while confidence in the other contributing factors to exonerate murderers significantly increases when prosecutorial misconduct is present.

关于检察官违反布雷迪规定对被误判为谋杀罪的人免罪信心的影响的实验研究
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
Journal of Experimental Criminology
Journal of Experimental Criminology CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Criminology focuses on high quality experimental and quasi-experimental research in the advancement of criminological theory and/or the development of evidence based crime and justice policy. The journal is also committed to the advancement of the science of systematic reviews and experimental methods in criminology and criminal justice. The journal seeks empirical papers on experimental and quasi-experimental studies, systematic reviews on substantive criminological and criminal justice issues, and methodological papers on experimentation and systematic review. The journal encourages submissions from scholars in the broad array of scientific disciplines that are concerned with criminology as well as crime and justice problems.
×
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