基于证据的怀疑与警察讯问中有罪的先验概率。

IF 2.4 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Sarah A Moody, Jean J Cabell, Tyler N Livingston, Yueran Yang
{"title":"基于证据的怀疑与警察讯问中有罪的先验概率。","authors":"Sarah A Moody,&nbsp;Jean J Cabell,&nbsp;Tyler N Livingston,&nbsp;Yueran Yang","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000513","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>False confessions are prevalent in wrongful convictions, and much research has examined investigation factors and interrogation methods that can contribute to false confessions. However, not all these factors are under the control of the legal system, and improving the effectiveness of interrogation methods has a limited effect on evaluating the veracity of confessions. We suggest incorporating an important but often-neglected factor in interrogations: suspects' prior probability of guilt (\"the prior,\" a Bayesian term meaning suspects' likelihood of being guilty before police conduct an interrogation).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>By connecting interrogation practices to probability concepts, we discuss a gap in the literature between questions traditionally answered by lab research and a distinct question faced by the legal system.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>On the basis of our analysis, we argue that police should increase priors by collecting additional evidence to satisfy an evidence-based suspicion of guilt before interrogating suspects.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Implementing the evidence-based suspicion practice can help police reduce false confessions, reallocate investigation time and resources, and assist prosecutors in building strong cases for trial. Likewise, researchers should expand the empirical and legal questions they ask and incorporate priors into their interrogation experiments to improve the generalizability of findings to the criminal justice system. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"47 2","pages":"307-319"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidence-based suspicion and the prior probability of guilt in police interrogations.\",\"authors\":\"Sarah A Moody,&nbsp;Jean J Cabell,&nbsp;Tyler N Livingston,&nbsp;Yueran Yang\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/lhb0000513\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>False confessions are prevalent in wrongful convictions, and much research has examined investigation factors and interrogation methods that can contribute to false confessions. However, not all these factors are under the control of the legal system, and improving the effectiveness of interrogation methods has a limited effect on evaluating the veracity of confessions. We suggest incorporating an important but often-neglected factor in interrogations: suspects' prior probability of guilt (\\\"the prior,\\\" a Bayesian term meaning suspects' likelihood of being guilty before police conduct an interrogation).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>By connecting interrogation practices to probability concepts, we discuss a gap in the literature between questions traditionally answered by lab research and a distinct question faced by the legal system.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>On the basis of our analysis, we argue that police should increase priors by collecting additional evidence to satisfy an evidence-based suspicion of guilt before interrogating suspects.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Implementing the evidence-based suspicion practice can help police reduce false confessions, reallocate investigation time and resources, and assist prosecutors in building strong cases for trial. Likewise, researchers should expand the empirical and legal questions they ask and incorporate priors into their interrogation experiments to improve the generalizability of findings to the criminal justice system. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48230,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law and Human Behavior\",\"volume\":\"47 2\",\"pages\":\"307-319\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law and Human Behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000513\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Human Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000513","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: 1

摘要

目的:虚假供词在冤假错判中普遍存在,许多研究都考察了可能导致虚假供词的调查因素和审讯方法。然而,并非所有这些因素都在法律制度的控制之下,提高审讯方法的有效性对评估供词的真实性效果有限。我们建议在审讯中纳入一个重要但经常被忽视的因素:嫌疑人有罪的先验概率(“先验”,一个贝叶斯术语,意思是嫌疑人在警察进行审讯之前有罪的可能性)。方法:通过将审讯实践与概率概念联系起来,我们讨论了传统上由实验室研究回答的问题与法律系统面临的独特问题之间的文献差距。结果:在分析的基础上,我们认为警察在讯问嫌疑人之前应该通过收集额外证据来增加先验性,以满足基于证据的有罪怀疑。结论:实施循证怀疑实践有助于警方减少虚假供述,重新分配侦查时间和资源,协助检察机关建立有力的案件进行审判。同样,研究人员应该扩大他们提出的经验和法律问题,并将先验因素纳入他们的审讯实验中,以提高调查结果对刑事司法系统的普遍性。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2023 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。
Evidence-based suspicion and the prior probability of guilt in police interrogations.

Objective: False confessions are prevalent in wrongful convictions, and much research has examined investigation factors and interrogation methods that can contribute to false confessions. However, not all these factors are under the control of the legal system, and improving the effectiveness of interrogation methods has a limited effect on evaluating the veracity of confessions. We suggest incorporating an important but often-neglected factor in interrogations: suspects' prior probability of guilt ("the prior," a Bayesian term meaning suspects' likelihood of being guilty before police conduct an interrogation).

Method: By connecting interrogation practices to probability concepts, we discuss a gap in the literature between questions traditionally answered by lab research and a distinct question faced by the legal system.

Results: On the basis of our analysis, we argue that police should increase priors by collecting additional evidence to satisfy an evidence-based suspicion of guilt before interrogating suspects.

Conclusions: Implementing the evidence-based suspicion practice can help police reduce false confessions, reallocate investigation time and resources, and assist prosecutors in building strong cases for trial. Likewise, researchers should expand the empirical and legal questions they ask and incorporate priors into their interrogation experiments to improve the generalizability of findings to the criminal justice system. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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