Using the context of an intimate partner homicide trial, the study explored the effects of defendant gender and age on mock-jurors\' verdicts, sentences, and culpability ratings-and whether defendant credibility and juror anger mediate these effects. The study used a 2 (Defendant Gender: male vs. female) × 3 (Defendant Age: 25, 45, or 65 years) between-subjects design. Participants (N = 513 community members) completed the experiment online. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the six Defendant Gender × Age Conditions. Participants read the trial transcripts that included the age and gender manipulations, provided verdicts and sentences, and completed the following measures: culpability, anger, credibility, and manipulation checks. Consistent with our hypotheses mock-jurors were more likely to find the male defendant guilty and give him longer sentences than the female defendant. Additionally, when the defendant was male (vs. female) mock-jurors provided higher anger ratings and rated the defendant as more culpable in the victim\'s death. Also consistent with our hypotheses, mock-jurors were more likely to find the youngest defendant guilty and view him as more culpable and less credible than the oldest defendant. The mechanisms responsible for jurors\' biased decisions varied as a function of the extra-legal variable (defendant gender vs. age). The defendant age effect was mediated by defendant credibility and the gender effect by juror anger. A defendant\'s right to a fair trial is dependent on a court\'s ability to limit extra-legal variables from influencing jurors\' decisions. Understanding the mechanism responsible for such bias is required before the courts can effectively remedy bias.

The present study integrates several distinct lines of jury decision-making research by examining how the racial identities of the defendant and an informant witness interact in a federal drug conspiracy trial scenario and by assessing whether jurors\' individual racial identity and jury group racial composition influence their judgments.
We predicted that jurors would be biased against the Black defendant and would be more likely to convict after exposure to a White informant, among other hypotheses.
We recruited 822 nonstudent jury-eligible participants assigned to 144 jury groups. Each group was assigned to one of four onditions where defendant race (Black or White) and informant race (Black or White) was manipulated. Each group watched a realistic audio-visual trial presentation, then deliberated as a group to render a verdict.
Contrary to expectations, the conditions depicting a Black defendant yielded lower conviction rates compared to those with a White defendant-at both the predeliberation individual (odds ratio [OR] = 1.54) and postdeliberation group level (OR = 2.91)-while the informant race did not influence verdict outcomes. We also found that jurors rated the government witnesses as more credible when the defendant was White compared to when he was Black. Credibility ratings and verdict outcomes were also predicted by jurors\' own race, although juror race did not interact with the race conditions when predicting verdicts.
Jurors are sensitive to defendant race, and this sensitivity appears to strengthen after deliberation-but in a direction opposite to what was expected. One potential implication of our findings is that juries may operate as a check on system bias by applying greater scrutiny to law enforcement-derived evidence when the defendant is Black. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

The criminal responsibility of offenders with mental disorders is a key issue in forensic psychiatry. Japan\'s implementation of the Medical Treatment and Supervision Act and Lay Judge Act in the early 2000s raised public awareness of this issue. To determine how criminal court judges in Japan assess the criminal responsibility of offenders, we examined 453 district court verdicts that mention psychiatric evidence. We extracted elements from each verdict that may be associated with courts\' decision-making regarding criminal responsibility and analyzed the relationship between each element and the adjudication of criminal responsibility. We investigated the changes in each element\'s prevalence over time. A logistic regression analysis revealed that the following were independently associated with the court decisions that offenders\' criminal responsibility was intact: understandable motivation for committing the offense, homogeneity of the offense from the defendant\'s usual behavioral pattern, a coherent process used to commit the offense, alertness while offending, and absence of psychotic symptoms. We observed that recent verdicts are more focused on the offender\'s perception of illegality and the coherence of the offending process while disregarding the defendant\'s consciousness and memory while offending. Thus, the courts focus on some specific elements for evaluating the criminal responsibility of each offender.

The Queensland Mental Health Review Tribunal makes difficult decisions regarding involuntary treatment of people with mental illness, applying strict legislative criteria against a backdrop of fundamental human rights considerations. This article reports on focus group research with lawyers and advocates for people with mental illness who appear before the Queensland Mental Health Review Tribunal. Participants expressed concerns regarding the manner in which decisions are made. For example, participants said that their clients\' views on the side effects of treatment do not receive adequate consideration when involuntary treatment is authorised. We review these concerns in the light of applicable legal obligations, including those arising from human rights law. We conclude that if these concerns are accurate, some adjustments to the Queensland Mental Health Review Tribunal\'s decision-making processes are required.

People with opioid use disorder are prevalent in criminal problem-solving courts and dependency courts, which have rehabilitative aims. Medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is the standard of care. Court staff set treatment policies for court clients. They may receive training from MOUD manufacturers, but no studies have examined court staff receipt of such training.
To examine receipt of training from MOUD manufacturers, we designed a cross-sectional survey for court staff. We distributed it online to all Florida court staff in criminal problem-solving or dependency courts (n = 585). Outcome variables were receipt of training from one or more MOUD manufacturers and training source. Covariates included dichotomous measures of court type, staff role, gender and rurality. Logistic regression models estimated the relationship between receipt of training and covariates.
Twenty-one percent of Florida criminal problem-solving and dependency court staff completed the survey. The most common receipt of training was from the manufacturer of extended-release naltrexone (36%), followed by buprenorphine (24%) and methadone (11%). Fifty-seven percent of those who received training received it from more than one MOUD manufacturer. Criminal problem-solving court staff were more likely than dependency court staff to receive training from MOUD manufacturers. Court program co-ordinators were more likely than other staff roles to receive training from MOUD manufacturers.
A large minority of respondents received training from a MOUD manufacturer, primarily from extended-release naltrexone\'s manufacturer, raising concerns regarding information accuracy and conflicts of interest. Court staff should seek MOUD training from academic institutions and non-profit organisations instead.

One of the goals of imprisonment is to reduce violence1. Although imprisonment has risen dramatically since the 1970s, its effects on future violent crime are poorly understood2. This study\'s objective was to examine the effect of imprisonment on violent crime in the community among individuals on the policy margin between prison and probation sentences. Drawing on data from a population-based cohort of individuals convicted of a felony in Michigan between 2003 and 2006 (n = 111,110) and followed through June 2015, we compared the rates of commission of violent crime committed by individuals sentenced to prison with those of individuals sentenced to probation using a natural experiment based on the random assignment of judges to criminal cases. Being sentenced to prison had no significant effects on arrests or convictions for violent crimes after release from prison, but imprisonment modestly reduced the probability of violence if comparisons included the effects of incapacitation during imprisonment. These results suggest that for individuals on the current policy margin between prison and probation, imprisonment is an ineffective long-term intervention for violence prevention, as it has, on balance, no rehabilitative or deterrent effects after release.

Although note taking during trials is known to enhance jurors\' recall of trial evidence, little is known about whether individual differences in note taking underpin this effect. Individual differences in handwriting speed, working memory, and attention may influence juror\'s note taking. This, in turn, may influence their recall. It may also be the case that if jurors note down and recall more incriminating than non-incriminating evidence (or vice versa), then this may predict their verdict. Three studies examined the associations between the aforementioned individual differences, the amount of critical evidence jurors noted down during a trial, the amount of critical evidence they recalled, and the verdicts they reached. Participants had their handwriting speed, short-term memory, working memory, and attention assessed. They then watched a trial video (some took notes), reached a verdict, and recalled as much trial information as possible. We found that jurors with faster handwriting speed (Study 1), higher short-term memory capacity (Study 2), and higher sustained attention capacity (Study 3) noted down, and later recalled, the most critical trial evidence. However, working memory storage capacity, information processing ability (Study 2) and divided attention (Study 3) were not associated with note taking or recall. Further, the type of critical evidence jurors predominantly recalled predicted their verdicts, such that jurors who recalled more incriminating evidence were more likely to reach a guilty verdict, and jurors who recalled more non-incriminating evidence were less likely to do so. The implications of these findings are discussed.

The law of negligence, as it applies to General Practitioners (GPs), is underexplored in the literature. There has been no substantial research undertaken that has penetrated deeper into claims that have actually reached court in order to analyse judicial reasoning pertaining to both breach of duty and causation. Given the increased pressures that GPs now face, these are important questions to consider. It is against this backdrop that this article seeks to present the findings of an empirical investigation into a number of reported clinical negligence claims brought against GPs. This analysis provides an original contribution to the developing academic discussion surrounding the changing nature of the doctor-patient relationship, and how it has come to be viewed in the eyes of the law. It also assesses the extent to which judges have become more receptive to protecting patient rights through the law of negligence, engaging in the expanding discourse concerning judicial deference to medical decision-making. It is argued that judges should sometimes show a greater propensity to question expert medical testimony in support of GPs, because some of the issues GPs typically face are less complex than in other clinical negligence cases involving technical areas of medicine, and that causation does not appear to be such a key factor in defeating patient claims. The work also provides useful guidance for GPs and their advisers in respect of where liability is most likely to be founded and how behaviour can be modified accordingly to reduce the chances of being sued.

暂无摘要。

One in three U.S. women has experienced intimate partner violence (IPV) and many seek domestic violence protective orders (DVPOs) for secondary IPV prevention. Because judges have considerable autonomy making DVPO decisions, there is a need to describe how courtroom interactions and information available to judges may influence DVPO dispositions. We conducted DVPO hearing observations and phone interviews with District Court Judges. Qualitative themes emerged that may influence judges\' decision making in DVPO hearings: case information availability, judge engagement level, and litigant credibility. Recommendations include more time for judges to review case files, IPV-related training for judges, and increased court advocate use.