Asymmetries in prior conviction reasoning: truth suppression effects in child protection contexts
Date
2010
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Psychology, Crime & Law
Abstract
In three empirical studies we examined how people reason about prior convictions in child abuse cases. We tested whether the disclosure of similar prior convictions prompts a mental representation or an additive probative value (Criminal Justice Act, 2003). Asymmetrical use of similar priors were observed in three studies. A pilot study showed that disclosure of a second prior did not contribute a weight equivalent to that of the first disclosure. Study 1 showed jurors did not see left-handed evidence (i.e. matching victim bruising) as more indicative of guilt than right-handedness unless a prior conviction was present, and the presence of priors suppressed the generation of alternative possibilities indicative of innocence. Study 2 showed that disclosure did not decrease community ratings of reoffending propensity and dangerousness as much as a similar prior conviction increased them. We consider the results in the context of a new psychological theory of prior conviction bias and the consequences for the implementation of Section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act (2003).
Description
item.page.type
Article
item.page.format
Keywords
child abuse, perpetrators, court, legal proceedings, reoffenders
Citation
Cowley, M., & Colyer, J. B. (2010). Asymmetries in prior conviction reasoning: truth suppression effects in child protection contexts. Psychology, Crime & Law, 16(3), 211-231.