1. Legal Psychology Gerhard Ohrband ULIM University, Moldova 7 th lecture Judicial judgments

2. Course structure Lectures: 1. Introduction into Legal Psychology – Theories of crime 2. Correctional treatment 3. Victimology 4. Police psychology 5. Testimony assessment 6. Criminal responsibility 7. Judicial judgments 8. Psychological assessment of families

3. Course structure Seminars: 9. Eyewitness testimony 10. Jury decision-making 11. Child abuse 12. Prostitution 13. Rape 14. Tax evasion 15. Stereotypes and prejudices in the law system

4. 1.Attitudes towards and demands for punishment 2.Judicial judgment: verdict and sentencing 3.Influences on judicial decision-making 4.Attribution of credibility 5.Procedural justice Content

5. 1. Attitudes towards and demands for punishment In relationship to …Arguments for punishment Arguments against punishment The victime.g., vengeance for suffering e.g., permanent victim status The offendere.g., possiblity for recompensation and reintegration in the community; learning effect e.g., permanent offender status; possible effects not intended by the punisher Third partiese.g., prevention of further crime; legal security e.g., punishment as a model for own aggressive behavior Absolute valuese.g., serves justicee.g., guilt is not measurable; interindividual variance in perceived severeness of an objectively equal punishment

6. 2. Judicial judgment: verdict and sentencing Formal models for analysing the judgment process Models based on the Bayes statistic Algebraic models of information integration SEU Theory (Subjective expected utility) Information order Heuristic process models

7. Attributional dimensions Location: Does the cause lie in the personality of the accused (internal) or in the surroundings (external)? Stability: Is it a stable, time-enduring or a variable cause? Control: Is the cause subjectable to conscious control of the accused or is not not controllable?

8. Attributional theory (Lurigio, Carroll & Stalans, 1994) Features of the Case Causal attributions Sanction- relevant cognitions Goal activation Sanction Previous deeds Planned action Stable cause High risk of recidivism Frightening of criminals; protection of the population Control- lable cause High accusation Recom- pensation for guilt Prison High fine or prison

9. 3. Influences on judicial decision- making Empirically observed disparity in judges’ decision Especially in complex cases psychological processes and influences are expected to have an effect on judges’ ecision Influence factors: offender characteristics, judge characteristics, characterstistics of the information exchange and judgment heuristics with its typical distortions of judgment Field and simulation studies

10. Anchoring effects Assimilation of numerical judgment under uncertainty with a presented number (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974) Verdicts are often numerical (years in prison, fines or length of social work) Influence of prosecutors’ demands Bad chances for the defense Possibilities to correct the anchoring effect in the legal context (“considering the opposite”, Lord, Lepper & Preston, 1984)

11. 4. Attribution of credibility Definition: An attribution of credibility is a the process of impression formation, in which a subjective subscription of credibility of a sender by a recipient, which is not based on a systematic behavior analysis Othello mistake (Ekman, 1985)

12. 5. Procedural justice Blader & Tyler (2003): 4-component model of procedural justice 1.Formal aspects in the quality of the decision- making 2.Informal aspects in the quality of the decision- making 3.Formal aspects in the treatment of the implicated persons during decision-making 4.Informal aspects in the treatment of the implicated persons during decision-making

13. Literature Dhani, M.K. (2003). Psychological models of professional decision making. Psychological Science, 14 (2), 175-180. Englich, B. & Mussweiler, T. (2001). Sentencing under uncertainty: Anchoring effects in the courtroom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31 (7), 1535-1551. Lord, C.G., Lepper, M.R. & Preston, E. (1984). Considering the opposite: A corrective strategy for social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1231-1243. Mussweiler, T., Strack, F. & Pfeiffer, T. (2000). Overcoming the inevitable anchoring effect: Considering the opposite compensates for selective accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1142-1150. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.