Johanna Hellgren, Annmarie Khairalla, Miko M Wilford, Rachele J DiFava, Saul M Kassin
{"title":"The psychological allure of Alford: Does wanting to appear innocent put innocents at risk?","authors":"Johanna Hellgren, Annmarie Khairalla, Miko M Wilford, Rachele J DiFava, Saul M Kassin","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000599","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The Alford plea allows defendants to maintain innocence while pleading guilty, but this option is largely unknown to the public, and its effects are unknown to researchers and practitioners. Some legal scholars have argued that the Alford plea may attract innocent defendants who may not otherwise accept a plea, whereas others have asserted that it offers a beneficial alternative for those wanting to preserve their reputations and avoid the more severe consequences of a trial conviction. Applying a social psychological lens, we examined how the Alford plea influences innocent and guilty mock defendants' plea decision making.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>We predicted that whereas guilty mock defendants would be more likely to accept a plea overall, the Alford variant would increase the rate at which innocent mock defendants accept pleas.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted two studies: In Study 1, 406 Prolific Academic participants read a vignette in which they were either innocent or guilty of involuntary manslaughter; in Study 2, we used an interactive simulation of legal procedures in which 367 innocent Testable Minds participants were accused of larceny. In both studies, participants were offered either a traditional plea requiring them to admit guilt or an Alford plea allowing them to maintain innocence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>As predicted, we found that guilty participants were more likely to accept a plea overall in Study 1 (<i>OR</i> = 10.16, 95% CI [6.38, 16.19]), but we did not observe an effect of Alford. In Study 2, innocent participants who rejected an initial plea were more likely to accept a second plea (<i>OR</i> = 3.61, 95% CI [1.28, 10.20]) if it was an Alford (and allowed them to maintain innocence). Additionally, many participants in both studies cited self-presentation-related reasons for their plea decisions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings suggest that the Alford plea may increase the risk of false guilty pleas, a finding that has important implications for criminal defendants and the attorneys who advise them. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"121-139"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","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/lhb0000599","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: The Alford plea allows defendants to maintain innocence while pleading guilty, but this option is largely unknown to the public, and its effects are unknown to researchers and practitioners. Some legal scholars have argued that the Alford plea may attract innocent defendants who may not otherwise accept a plea, whereas others have asserted that it offers a beneficial alternative for those wanting to preserve their reputations and avoid the more severe consequences of a trial conviction. Applying a social psychological lens, we examined how the Alford plea influences innocent and guilty mock defendants' plea decision making.
Hypotheses: We predicted that whereas guilty mock defendants would be more likely to accept a plea overall, the Alford variant would increase the rate at which innocent mock defendants accept pleas.
Method: We conducted two studies: In Study 1, 406 Prolific Academic participants read a vignette in which they were either innocent or guilty of involuntary manslaughter; in Study 2, we used an interactive simulation of legal procedures in which 367 innocent Testable Minds participants were accused of larceny. In both studies, participants were offered either a traditional plea requiring them to admit guilt or an Alford plea allowing them to maintain innocence.
Results: As predicted, we found that guilty participants were more likely to accept a plea overall in Study 1 (OR = 10.16, 95% CI [6.38, 16.19]), but we did not observe an effect of Alford. In Study 2, innocent participants who rejected an initial plea were more likely to accept a second plea (OR = 3.61, 95% CI [1.28, 10.20]) if it was an Alford (and allowed them to maintain innocence). Additionally, many participants in both studies cited self-presentation-related reasons for their plea decisions.
Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the Alford plea may increase the risk of false guilty pleas, a finding that has important implications for criminal defendants and the attorneys who advise them. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
