Asymmetries in prior conviction reasoning: truth suppression effects in child protection contexts

Date

2010

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

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.

DOI