德州律师承认目击证人程序存在问题，但无论如何都要抗辩

IF 1.8 2区社会学 Q2 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY

Journal of Experimental Criminology Pub Date : 2025-03-21 DOI:10.1007/s11292-025-09668-7

Angela M. Jones, Elizabeth A. Quinby

{"title":"德州律师承认目击证人程序存在问题，但无论如何都要抗辩","authors":"Angela M. Jones, Elizabeth A. Quinby","doi":"10.1007/s11292-025-09668-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Objectives</h3><p>In a conceptual replication and extension of Pezdek and O’Brien (2014), we investigated eyewitness knowledge and plea-bargaining decisions among Texas attorneys.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>Attorneys (<i>N</i> = 196) completed a knowledge survey and an experimental vignette that varied the quality of two identification procedures used to secure the sole piece of evidence in a case on plea-bargaining decisions.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>Attorneys were mostly knowledgeable of eyewitness recommendations but were not sensitive to the quality of identification procedures in the vignette. Overall, prosecutors were more likely to view the defendant as guilty, offer a plea, and seek harsher sentences than defense attorneys.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions</h3><p>These results suggest attorneys are not attuned to problematic police practices or do not view biased instructions and single-blind administration as problematic enough to change plea-bargaining decisions. New avenues for increasing sensitivity are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":47684,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Criminology","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Texas attorneys recognize problematic eyewitness procedures, but plea away anyway\",\"authors\":\"Angela M. Jones, Elizabeth A. Quinby\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11292-025-09668-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Objectives</h3><p>In a conceptual replication and extension of Pezdek and O’Brien (2014), we investigated eyewitness knowledge and plea-bargaining decisions among Texas attorneys.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Methods</h3><p>Attorneys (<i>N</i> = 196) completed a knowledge survey and an experimental vignette that varied the quality of two identification procedures used to secure the sole piece of evidence in a case on plea-bargaining decisions.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Results</h3><p>Attorneys were mostly knowledgeable of eyewitness recommendations but were not sensitive to the quality of identification procedures in the vignette. Overall, prosecutors were more likely to view the defendant as guilty, offer a plea, and seek harsher sentences than defense attorneys.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Conclusions</h3><p>These results suggest attorneys are not attuned to problematic police practices or do not view biased instructions and single-blind administration as problematic enough to change plea-bargaining decisions. New avenues for increasing sensitivity are needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47684,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Criminology\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-21\",\"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/s11292-025-09668-7\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Criminology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-025-09668-7","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

摘要

在Pezdek和O 'Brien（2014）的概念复制和扩展中，我们调查了德克萨斯州律师的目击证人知识和辩诉交易决定。方法律师（N = 196）完成了一项知识调查和一项实验小短文，以改变两种鉴定程序的质量，这些程序用于确保辩诉交易决定中唯一的证据。结果律师大多了解目击者的建议，但对小短文中鉴定程序的质量不敏感。总的来说，检察官比辩护律师更有可能认为被告有罪，提出抗辩，并寻求更严厉的判决。这些结果表明，律师不适应有问题的警察做法，也不认为有偏见的指示和单盲管理有足够的问题来改变辩诉交易的决定。需要增加敏感性的新途径。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Texas attorneys recognize problematic eyewitness procedures, but plea away anyway

Objectives

In a conceptual replication and extension of Pezdek and O’Brien (2014), we investigated eyewitness knowledge and plea-bargaining decisions among Texas attorneys.

Methods

Attorneys (N = 196) completed a knowledge survey and an experimental vignette that varied the quality of two identification procedures used to secure the sole piece of evidence in a case on plea-bargaining decisions.

Results

Attorneys were mostly knowledgeable of eyewitness recommendations but were not sensitive to the quality of identification procedures in the vignette. Overall, prosecutors were more likely to view the defendant as guilty, offer a plea, and seek harsher sentences than defense attorneys.

Conclusions

These results suggest attorneys are not attuned to problematic police practices or do not view biased instructions and single-blind administration as problematic enough to change plea-bargaining decisions. New avenues for increasing sensitivity are needed.

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

Journal of Experimental Criminology CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-

CiteScore

6.20

自引率

6.70%

发文量

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.