The reasonable officer standard: Perceptions of reasonableness and legal decision making.

IF 3.2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Cassandra Flick,Kimberly Schweitzer
{"title":"The reasonable officer standard: Perceptions of reasonableness and legal decision making.","authors":"Cassandra Flick,Kimberly Schweitzer","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000629","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\r\nWe explored how the reasonable officer standard aligns with the use-of-force judgments.\r\n\r\nHYPOTHESES\r\nReasonable officer standard-related factors of civilian resistance and civilian injury would impact participant judgments in ways inconsistent with reasonable officer standard-based policy. Given a scenario of legally reasonable force, participants would find an officer's actions less reasonable and attribute more punishment when the civilian actively resisted (compared with assaulted) the officer and the civilian incurred a high (compared with low) severity injury. Expert testimony on the reasonable officer standard and policy would weaken this effect and directly impact judgments. Participants with more positive attitudes toward police legitimacy would render more pro-officer judgments. These attitudes would moderate the effects of civilian action, civilian injury, and expert testimony, such that participants with more positive views would be less impacted by these case factors.\r\n\r\nMETHOD\r\nParticipants (N = 1,462) listened to a use-of-force scenario with consistent officer action but where civilian action and civilian injury severity were manipulated. Study 1 utilized a 2 (civilian action: Level 3 [active resistance] vs. Level 4 [assaultive behavior]) × 2 (civilian injury: high vs. low) between-participants design. Study 2 included the same manipulations in the context of a mock trial and manipulated reasonable officer standard expert testimony (present vs. absent).\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nIn Study 1, civilian action and injury impacted judgments in ways inconsistent with reasonable officer standard-based policy as hypothesized. In Study 2, civilian action and injury had nonsignificant effects, but expert testimony significantly impacted all dependent measures. Participants' police legitimacy attitudes directly influenced our dependent measures and moderated the impact of civilian action and injury (Study 1) and expert testimony (Study 2) as hypothesized.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nIndividuals' criminal trial, but not general, judgments align with reasonable officer standard-based policy and are impacted by education on police policy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","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/lhb0000629","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 explored how the reasonable officer standard aligns with the use-of-force judgments. HYPOTHESES Reasonable officer standard-related factors of civilian resistance and civilian injury would impact participant judgments in ways inconsistent with reasonable officer standard-based policy. Given a scenario of legally reasonable force, participants would find an officer's actions less reasonable and attribute more punishment when the civilian actively resisted (compared with assaulted) the officer and the civilian incurred a high (compared with low) severity injury. Expert testimony on the reasonable officer standard and policy would weaken this effect and directly impact judgments. Participants with more positive attitudes toward police legitimacy would render more pro-officer judgments. These attitudes would moderate the effects of civilian action, civilian injury, and expert testimony, such that participants with more positive views would be less impacted by these case factors. METHOD Participants (N = 1,462) listened to a use-of-force scenario with consistent officer action but where civilian action and civilian injury severity were manipulated. Study 1 utilized a 2 (civilian action: Level 3 [active resistance] vs. Level 4 [assaultive behavior]) × 2 (civilian injury: high vs. low) between-participants design. Study 2 included the same manipulations in the context of a mock trial and manipulated reasonable officer standard expert testimony (present vs. absent). RESULTS In Study 1, civilian action and injury impacted judgments in ways inconsistent with reasonable officer standard-based policy as hypothesized. In Study 2, civilian action and injury had nonsignificant effects, but expert testimony significantly impacted all dependent measures. Participants' police legitimacy attitudes directly influenced our dependent measures and moderated the impact of civilian action and injury (Study 1) and expert testimony (Study 2) as hypothesized. CONCLUSIONS Individuals' criminal trial, but not general, judgments align with reasonable officer standard-based policy and are impacted by education on police policy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
合理官员标准:对合理和法律决策的看法。
目的探讨合理警官标准如何与武力使用判断相一致。与合理的军官标准相关的平民抵抗和平民伤害因素会以与合理的军官标准为基础的政策不一致的方式影响参与者的判断。在法律上合理使用武力的情况下,当平民积极抵抗(与被攻击者相比)警察和平民造成严重伤害(与低严重伤害相比)时,参与者会认为警察的行为不太合理,并将更多的惩罚归因于警察的行为。关于合理警官标准和政策的专家证言将削弱这种效果,并直接影响判决。对警察合法性持更积极态度的参与者会做出更支持警察的判断。这些态度将缓和民事行动、平民伤害和专家证词的影响,使持更积极看法的参与者较少受到这些案件因素的影响。方法参与者(N = 1462)听取了一个使用武力的情景,其中有一致的军官行动,但平民行动和平民伤害严重程度被操纵。研究1采用了2(平民行为:3级[主动抵抗]与4级[攻击行为])x2(平民伤害:高与低)参与者之间的设计。研究2在模拟审判的背景下包括相同的操作,并操纵合理的官员标准专家证词(在场与缺席)。结果在研究1中,民事诉讼和伤害影响判断的方式与假设的合理的军官标准政策不一致。在研究2中,民事行为和伤害的影响不显著,但专家证词对所有依赖措施都有显著影响。参与者的警察合法性态度直接影响了我们假设的依赖措施,并调节了民事行为和伤害(研究1)和专家证词(研究2)的影响。结论个人刑事审判的判决与合理的警察标准政策一致,但不符合一般判决,并受到警察政策教育的影响。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信