Premium
Paradoxes of proof and punishment: Psychological pitfalls in judicial decision making
Author(s) -
Keijser Jan W.,
Koppen Peter J.
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
legal and criminological psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.65
H-Index - 57
eISSN - 2044-8333
pISSN - 1355-3259
DOI - 10.1348/135532506x118721
Subject(s) - verdict , punishment (psychology) , conviction , psychology , sentence , reasonable doubt , doctrine , affect (linguistics) , social psychology , judicial opinion , law , criminology , political science , linguistics , philosophy , communication
Purpose . This study focuses on two psychological mechanisms that may inadvertently affect judges' decisions on proof of guilt and on punishment. It involves mechanisms that are clearly in conflict with formal judicial doctrine. One hypothesis, the conviction paradox , asserts that, faced with very serious offences, a judge's standard of proof will be lower than for less serious, but otherwise comparable, offences. A second hypothesis, compensatory punishment , asserts that in cases with relatively weak evidence, judges who nevertheless render a guilty verdict will be inclined to compensate their initial doubt on the matter of guilt by meting out a less severe sentence. Method . The hypotheses are evaluated in an experiment with Dutch judges and justices who serve in criminal courts. This was done using fictitious but highly realistic dossiers of criminal cases. Results . Neither of the two hypotheses was supported in the present study. Conclusions . Findings are discussed in relation to their implications for theory development and future research in the area of legal decision making.