目标:在过去的40年里,在陪审员认罪文献中出现了不同的研究结果,提示需要进行系统评价和荟萃分析,以评估供认证据(强制或非强制)对定罪率和试验保障措施有效性的影响.
目的:我们没有预测任何方向性假设。一些研究表明,当认罪时,定罪增加(与不是),无论该供词是否被胁迫;其他研究表明,陪审员能够否认被胁迫的供词。研究还证明了敏感性效应(保障辅助陪审员做出适当决定),怀疑主义效应(保障措施导致陪审员不分青红皂白地无视认罪证据),或对专家证词和陪审团指示无效。
方法:我们确定了83个独立样本(N=24,860)符合我们的荟萃分析纳入标准。使用提取的Hedges\'g效果大小,我们进行了网络荟萃分析和回归分析,以解决关键研究问题.
结果:强迫和非强迫供认(与没有供认)定罪增加(网络gs分别=0.34和0.70),但被胁迫(与非胁迫)供认减少了定罪(网络g=-0.36)。当采用陪审团指示时(与不是),强迫供认案件中的定罪减少了(非强迫供认没有出现这种差异;敏感性效应)。专家证词,然而,无论供词是否被胁迫,定罪的可能性都会降低(怀疑效应)。
结论:忏悔证据有说服力,尽管陪审员似乎认识到强制性审讯方法对供认可靠性的不利影响,他们不完全否认不可靠的供词。因此需要教育保障,但是鼓励更多的研究来确定陪审团指示和专家证词的最有效形式。一个潜在的改革可能是在审讯室本身,因为基于科学的访谈方法可以为陪审员提供更可靠的被告陈述证据,帮助他们做出适当的判决决定。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2024APA,保留所有权利)。
OBJECTIVE: Over the past 4 decades, discrepant research findings have emerged in the juror-confession literature, prompting the need for a systematic review and meta-analysis that assesses the effect of confession evidence (coerced or noncoerced) on conviction rates and the efficacy of trial safeguards.
OBJECTIVE: We did not predict any directional hypotheses. Some studies show increased convictions when a confession is present (vs. not), regardless of whether that confession was coerced; other studies demonstrate that jurors are able to discount coerced confessions. Studies have also demonstrated sensitivity effects (safeguards aided jurors in making appropriate decisions), skepticism effects (safeguards led jurors to indiscriminately disregard confession evidence), or null effects with regard to expert testimony and jury instructions.
METHODS: We identified 83 independent samples (N = 24,860) that met our meta-analytic inclusion criteria. Using extracted Hedges\' g effect sizes, we conducted both network meta-analysis and metaregression to address key research questions.
RESULTS: Coerced and noncoerced confessions (vs. no confession) increased convictions (network gs = 0.34 and 0.70, respectively), yet coerced (vs. noncoerced) confessions reduced convictions (network g = -0.36). When jury instructions were employed (vs. not), convictions in coerced confession cases were reduced (this difference did not emerge for noncoerced confessions; a sensitivity effect). Expert testimony, however, reduced conviction likelihood regardless of whether a confession was coerced (a skepticism effect).
CONCLUSIONS: Confession evidence is persuasive, and although jurors appear to recognize the detrimental effect of coercive interrogation methods on confession reliability, they do not fully discount unreliable confessions. Educational safeguards are therefore needed, but more research is encouraged to identify the most effective forms of jury instructions and expert testimony. One potential reform could be in the interrogation room itself, as science-based interviewing approaches could provide jurors with more reliable defendant statement evidence that assists them in reaching appropriate verdict decisions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).