阿尔福德的心理诱惑:想要显得无辜会让无辜的人处于危险之中吗?

IF 2.4 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Law and Human Behavior Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-31 DOI:10.1037/lhb0000599
Johanna Hellgren, Annmarie Khairalla, Miko M Wilford, Rachele J DiFava, Saul M Kassin
{"title":"阿尔福德的心理诱惑:想要显得无辜会让无辜的人处于危险之中吗?","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

目的:Alford辩诉允许被告在认罪的同时保持无罪,但这种选择在很大程度上不为公众所知,其影响对研究人员和从业者来说也是未知的。一些法律学者认为,阿尔福德辩诉可能会吸引无辜的被告,否则他们可能不会接受辩诉,而另一些人则断言,对于那些想要维护自己的声誉并避免审判定罪的更严重后果的人来说,这是一个有益的选择。运用社会心理学的视角,我们考察了Alford辩诉如何影响无罪和有罪的模拟被告的辩诉决策。假设:我们预测,尽管有罪的模拟被告总体上更有可能接受认罪,但Alford变体会增加无辜的模拟被告接受认罪的比率。方法:我们进行了两项研究:在研究1中,406名多产的学术参与者阅读了一篇小短文,其中他们要么是无辜的,要么是犯有过失杀人罪的;在研究2中,我们使用了一个法律程序的交互式模拟,其中367名无辜的可测试思维参与者被指控犯有盗窃罪。在这两项研究中,参与者要么接受要求他们认罪的传统认罪,要么接受允许他们保持清白的阿尔福德认罪。结果:正如预测的那样,在研究1中,我们发现有罪的参与者更有可能接受认罪(OR = 10.16, 95% CI[6.38, 16.19]),但我们没有观察到Alford的影响。在研究2中,拒绝最初认罪的无辜参与者更有可能接受第二次认罪(OR = 3.61, 95% CI[1.28, 10.20]),如果这是一个Alford认罪(并允许他们保持清白)。此外,两项研究中的许多参与者都提到了与自我表现有关的原因。结论:我们的研究结果表明,Alford认罪可能会增加虚假认罪的风险,这一发现对刑事被告和为他们提供建议的律师具有重要意义。(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。
The psychological allure of Alford: Does wanting to appear innocent put innocents at risk?

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).

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