Legal and Criminological Psychology最新文献

{"title":"Perceptions of intimate partner stalking and cyberstalking: Do perpetrator and victim gender and victims' responses to stalking influence perceptions of criminal behaviour and responsibility?","authors":"Daniel L. Gordon, C. Dardis","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12240","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12240","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"63383752","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Perceptions of intimate partner stalking and cyberstalking: Do perpetrator and victim gender and victims' responses to stalking influence perceptions of criminal behaviour and responsibility?","authors":"Daniel L. Gordon,&nbsp;Christina M. Dardis","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12240","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12240","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>While the gender of stalking victims and perpetrators may affect perceptions of stalking, limited research has examined whether victim responses to stalking (i.e. ignoring or confronting the perpetrator) are similarly influential. The present study examined whether perpetrator and victim gender and victim response (ignore vs. asking the perpetrator to stop) were related to perceptions of stalking and cyberstalking.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Participants (<i>N</i> = 223) from the United States were randomly assigned to one of four vignettes (gender × victim response) that included both in-person stalking and cyberstalking behaviours. Perceptions assessed included: whether police intervention was necessary, whether the scenario constituted a crime, and how responsible the perpetrator and victim were for the situation. They also rated how distressing they believed the in-person (vs. cyberstalking) behaviours would be.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Most of the participants believed police intervention was required (57.4%), yet fewer believed a crime occurred (32.7%). Overall, in-person stalking behaviours were seen as more distressing than were cyberstalking behaviours. Men were perceived as more responsible than women when they were both victims and perpetrators. There was an interaction between gender and victim response to stalking, such that male victims who ignored the perpetrator were considered less in need of police intervention than female victims who ignored the perpetrator (and male and female victims who confronted the perpetrator).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Both male victims and perpetrators may be perceived as more responsible by juries and informal supports. Men may be viewed as less in need of law enforcement support unless they have already confronted their pursuer.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":"28 2","pages":"222-236"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50153603","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Editorial acknowledgement","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12233","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12233","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":"28 1","pages":"200"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50139965","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Alternative explanations for pro-conviction judicial tendencies: A commentary on Berryessa et al. 2022","authors":"Kent Roach","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12239","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lcrp.12239","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":"28 2","pages":"217-221"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48467011","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Growing pains of addressing cognitive bias in legal contexts: A commentary on Berryessa et al. (2022)","authors":"Jeff Kukucka","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12237","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lcrp.12237","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":"28 2","pages":"213-216"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48919606","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Judges are people too: A commentary on Berryessa et al. (2022)","authors":"Heather M. Kleider-Offutt,&nbsp;Rachel Heiter,&nbsp;Ashley Meacham","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12236","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lcrp.12236","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":"28 2","pages":"204-207"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41419749","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Diversifying the bench: A commentary on Berryessa, Dror, and McCormack (2022)","authors":"Margaret Bull Kovera,&nbsp;Jacqueline Katzman","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12238","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lcrp.12238","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":"28 2","pages":"208-212"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46963736","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Constraining prosecutors and other advocates who become judges: A commentary on Berryessa et al. (2022)","authors":"Gregory Mitchell","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12235","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lcrp.12235","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;Berryessa et al. (&lt;span&gt;2022&lt;/span&gt;) consider how prior experience as a criminal prosecutor may influence judicial behaviour, but their concerns about prior experience apply much more broadly in the case of American judges. In the United States, unlike many other countries, lawyers with experience as advocates comprise the great majority of persons selected to be judges (Volcansek, &lt;span&gt;2010&lt;/span&gt;; Wilets et al., &lt;span&gt;2022&lt;/span&gt;), and most American lawyers focus their practice on particular areas and particular client types, such as representing employers or employees in employment disputes. Specialized experience of any kind, whether as a prosecutor or corporate attorney—and both these types of lawyers have been over-represented among recent judicial nominees to the federal bench in the United States (Shepherd, &lt;span&gt;2021&lt;/span&gt;)—may lead to preconceptions, preferences and blind spots that influence how judges discharge their duties.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Berryessa et al. rightly question greater diversification of the bench as a solution because balancing biases across judges does nothing to protect the parties who must appear before the pro-prosecution, pro-business or pro-plaintiff judge. Furthermore, given the many prior advocacy roles judges bring to the bench, it is unrealistic to expect sufficient experiential diversification to achieve balance in the aggregate. Berryessa et al. also rightly question the power of short-term training to produce long-term debiasing effects (see, e.g. Bezrukova et al., &lt;span&gt;2016&lt;/span&gt;; Greenwald et al., &lt;span&gt;2022&lt;/span&gt;). We should not despair, however, for American legal systems employ several measures that constrain judges' idiosyncratic beliefs and personal values to produce merits-based decision-making. In particular, the use of adversarial presentation of arguments and evidence, paired with structured decision-making taking place inside a strong accountability matrix, should promote impartial decision-making.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;One of the most effective methods to reduce confirmation bias and biased assimilation of evidence involves considering opposing viewpoints and alternative possibilities (e.g. Lilienfeld et al., &lt;span&gt;2009&lt;/span&gt;; van Brussel et al., &lt;span&gt;2020&lt;/span&gt;). The adversarial presentation of evidence and arguments by parties with conflicting incentives, playing on a field levelled by procedures that reduce the significance of resource disparities, ensure that judges leaning to one side or the other are exposed to competing arguments and factual narratives. This process promotes individuation and perspective-taking that should disrupt preconceptions or stereotypes judges bring to a case (Devine et al., &lt;span&gt;2012&lt;/span&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Judges do not have free reign to admit evidence and make decisions as they see fit but rather must act according to extensive procedural and substantive laws that govern how judges should handle and decide cases, along with rules directing judges to recuse themselves from cases in wh","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":"28 2","pages":"201-203"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/lcrp.12235","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45895549","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Probing dual harm and non-violent misconduct among imprisoned adult men in Northern Ireland","authors":"Michelle Butler,&nbsp;Dominic Kelly,&nbsp;Catherine B. McNamee","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12234","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lcrp.12234","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study examines the prevalence of dual harm (i.e. self-harm and violence) among imprisoned adult men in Northern Ireland, the relationship between dual harm and non-violent misconduct, while controlling for other known risk factors for misconduct, as well as how those who engage in dual harm may differ from other groups.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Using the administrative records of 892 adult men, descriptive statistics assessed the prevalence of dual harm. A negative binominal regression followed by predicted margins examined the relationship between dual harm and non-violent misconduct accounting for controls. Additionally, a multinomial logistic regression was utilised to identify if those engaged in dual harm differed from others in terms of their characteristics and in-prison experiences.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The findings indicate that 1-in-5 adult men were engaged in dual harm, with these men accounting for 72% of all non-violent misconduct incidents examined. Dual harm was significantly related to an increased involvement in non-violent misconduct compared to other harm histories (self-harm only, violence only, or no harm) even when other known risk factors were considered. Those engaged in dual harm were also discovered to possess a number of characteristics that differ significantly from other groups.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>These findings strengthen emerging research indicating those who engage in dual harm are a distinct group that can be challenging to manage due to their increased involvement in misconduct and their multiple needs, which existing services and supports may be ill suited to address.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":"28 1","pages":"136-149"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/lcrp.12234","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46162103","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Predicting and projecting memory: Error and bias in metacognitive judgements underlying testimony evaluation","authors":"Rebecca K. Helm,&nbsp;Bethany Growns","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12232","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lcrp.12232","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Metacognitive judgements of what another person would remember had they experienced a stimulus—that is social metamemory judgements, are likely to be important in evaluations of testimony in criminal and civil justice systems. This paper develops and tests predictions about two sources of error in social metamemory judgements that have the potential to be important in legal contexts—errors resulting from beliefs informed by own memory being inappropriately applied to the memory of others, and errors resulting from differential experience of an underlying stimulus.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Method</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We examined social metamemory judgements in two experimental studies. In Experiment 1 (<i>N</i> = 323), participants were required to make either social metamemory judgements relating to faces or predictions relating to their own memory for faces. In Experiment 2 (<i>N</i> = 275), we manipulated participant experience of faces, holding the described experience of the person whose memory was being assessed constant and asked participants to make social metamemory judgements.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>As predicted, judgements relating to the memory of others were prone to inaccuracy. Whilst participants making predictions relating to their own memory performed above chance, participants making social metamemory judgements performed no better than chance. Social metamemory judgements were also influenced by the way stimuli were experienced by an assessor, even where this experience did not correspond to the experience of the person whose memory they were assessing.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Having our own experiences of memory does not necessarily make us well-placed to assess the memory of others, and, in fact, our own experiences of memory can even be misleading in making judgements about the memory of others.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":"28 1","pages":"15-33"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/lcrp.12232","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46638325","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}