Resentencing of Juvenile Lifers: The Philadelphia Experience

We examined the Philadelphia District Attorney Office’s approach to juvenile lifer resentencing, which began in 2017 under the administration of District Attorney Seth Williams and has continued under the administration of District Attorney Larry Krasner. For cases resentenced as of December 31st, 2019, we describe similarities and differences between the Williams and Krasner administrations in decision making and sentence length reductions, and we report on the recidivism rate and estimated cost savings for Pennsylvania as a result of release

A First Look at the Plea Deal Experiences of Juveniles Tried in Adult Court

While there is a large body of research on the legal capacities of adolescents, this research largely has neglected the plea-deal context. To learn about adolescents’ understanding of the plea process and their appreciation of the short- and long-term consequences of accepting a plea deal, we conducted interviews with 40 juveniles who were offered plea deals in adult criminal court. Participants displayed a limited understanding of the plea process were not fully aware of their legal options and appeared to be overly influenced by the short-term benefits associated with accepting their plea deals. Limited contact with attorneys may have contributed to poor understanding. Although preliminary, our results suggest that these youth might be at increased risk for due-process rights violations. We use these data to point to several open research questions on the plea-deal process for youth charged as adults

Gender-Intrusive Questioning: A Survey of Expert Witnesses

This paper reports the results of a survey of male and female psychologists with expert witness experience. The survey explored the roles of both expert witness gender and valence of the testimony to provide preliminary empirical data on whether gender in combination with the valence of testimony leads to perceived bias targeted towards female experts. The presence of such bias might diminish the credibility of the expert and subsequently the proffered testimony and, thus, undermine the legal system as effective fact-finder by leading to decision-making based on extra-legal factors

We Don’t Always Mean What We Say: Attitudes Toward Statutory Exclusion of Juvenile Offenders From Juvenile Court Jurisdiction

In the United States, juvenile offenders are often excluded from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court on the basis of age and crime type alone. Data from national surveys and data from psycholegal research on support for adult sanction of juvenile offenders are often at odds. The ways in which questions are asked and the level of detail provided to respondents and research participants may influence expressed opinions. Respondents may also be more likely to agree with harsh sanctions when they have fewer offender- and case-specific details to consider. Here, we test the hypothesis that attitudes supporting statutory exclusion laws measured in the absence of specific case-specific details may not be the best indicator of agreement with such laws in practice. We found that support for statutory exclusion was affected by exposure to information about an offender’s unique situation and by exposure to general scientific information about adolescent development. These results suggest that despite an apparent widespread agreement with automatic exclusion statutes, laypersons consider factors other than those allowed by the law when they are asked how to treat an individual offender

Development and Validation of the Counterfactual Thinking for Negative Events Scale

We examined the psychometric properties of the newly created Counterfactual Thinking for Negative Events Scale (CTNES) in two studies involving university undergraduates. In Study 1 (N = 634), factor analysis revealed four subscales that correspond with various types of counterfactual thinking: Nonreferent Downward, Other-Referent Upward, Self-Referent Upward, and Nonreferent Upward. The subscales were largely orthogonal and had adequate internal consistency and test–retest reliability. The CTNES subscales were positively correlated with a traditional method of assessing counterfactual thinking and were related as expected to contextual aspects of the negative event, negative affect, and cognitive style. In Study 2 (N = 208), we further examined the validity of the scale and demonstrated that the subscales were sensitive to an experimental manipulation concerning the type of negative event participants recalled. Moreover, the CTNES subscales correlated in the expected direction with measures of coping and cognitive style

Is there a conjunction fallacy in legal probabilistic decision making?

Classical probability theory (CPT) has represented the rational standard for decision making in human cognition. Even though CPT has provided many descriptively excellent decision models, there have also been some empirical results persistently problematic for CPT accounts. The tension between the normative prescription of CPT and human behavior is particularly acute in cases where we have higher expectations for rational decisions. One such case concerns legal decision making from legal experts, such as attorneys and prosecutors and, more so, judges. In the present research we explore one of the most influential CPT decision fallacies, the conjunction fallacy (CF), in a legal decision making task, involving assessing evidence that the same suspect had committed two separate crimes. The information for the two crimes was presented consecutively. Each participant was asked to provide individual ratings for the two crimes in some cases and conjunctive probability rating for both crimes in other cases, after all information had been presented. Overall, 360 probability ratings for guilt were collected from 120 participants, comprised of 40 judges, 40 attorneys and prosecutors, and 40 individuals without legal education. Our results provide evidence for a double conjunction fallacy (in this case, a higher probability of committing both crimes than the probability of committing either crime individually), in the group of individuals without legal education. These results are discussed in terms of their applied implications and in relation to a recent framework for understanding such results, quantum probability theory (QPT)

The Effects of Outcome Severity, Damage Amounts and Counterfactual Thinking on Juror Punitive Damage Award Decision Making

Punitive damage awards are designed to penalize the defendant for negligent behavior and deter others from acting in a similar manner. The effects of outcome severity and the provision of a monetary anchor on mock jurors\u27 punitive damage award decisions in a medical negligence case were examined in the current study. Jurors often find it difficult to arrive at a dollar amount while making such decisions, and they tend to be influenced by extralegal factors such as outcome severity, as well as by various cognitive heuristics, such as counterfactual thinking. Results indicate that jurors are influenced by suggested monetary anchors while determining damage awards. Participants\u27 decisions regarding monetary damages were not influenced by the severity of the outcome (which is in accordance with the law). This was also reflected in participants\u27 open-ended responses. When asked about the key factors that influenced their decisions regarding damage awards, very few made reference to the outcome. Overall, the results indicate that participants were influenced by the provision of monetary anchors, but not outcome severity in their decision-making process regarding damage award amounts

COVID-19 Exacerbates Existing System Factors That Disadvantage Defendants: Findings from a National Survey of Defense Attorneys

COVID-19 has impacted many facets of daily life and the legal system is no exception. Legal scholars have hypothesized that the effects of the pandemic may contribute to more coercive plea bargains (Cannon, 2020; Johnson, 2020). In this study, we explored defense attorneys\u27 perceptions of whether and how the plea process has changed during the COVID-19 pandemic

The Influence of Emerging Adulthood on the Risky and Dangerous Behaviors of LGBT Populations

During emerging adulthood, traditional social bonds and turning points may be delayed, not present, or may not work in the same manner as they had for prior generations, leading many to engage in risky and dangerous behaviors. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered emerging adults may be at particular risk for engaging in risky and dangerous behavior during emerging adulthood due to the lack of social bonds, reaching of turning points, as well as the historic stigmatization of these populations. Focusing on LGBT populations in the United States, the influence of emerging adulthood on risky and dangerous behaviors is presented; a theoretical examination of the relationship between LGBT populations and risky and dangerous behaviors is provided; the influence of emerging adulthood on LGBT populations is explored; research on the role of emerging adulthoods influence on the risky and dangerous behaviors of LGBT populations is presented; and theoretical and policy implications are offered