A HEAVY THUMB ON THE SCALE: THE EFFECT OF VICTIM IMPACT EVIDENCE ON CAPITAL DECISION MAKING*

The past several decades have seen the emergence of a movement in the criminal justice system that has called for a greater consideration for the rights of victims. One manifestation of this movement has been the “right” of victims or victims' families to speak to the sentencing body through what are called victim impact statements about the value of the victim and the full harm that the offender has created. Although victim impact statements have been a relatively noncontroversial part of regular criminal trials, their presence in capital cases has had a more contentious history. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned previous decisions and explicitly permitted victim impact testimony in capital cases in Payne v. Tennessee (1991) . The dissenters in that case argued that such evidence only would arouse the emotions of jurors and bias them in favor of imposing death. A body of research in behavioral economics on the “identifiable victim effect” and the “identifiable wrongdoer effect” would have supported such a view. Using a randomized controlled experiment with a death‐eligible sample of potential jurors and the videotape of an actual penalty trial in which victim impact evidence (VIE) was used, we found that these concerns about VIE are perhaps well placed. Subjects who viewed VIE testimony in the penalty phase were more likely to feel negative emotions like anger, hostility, and vengeance; were more likely to feel sympathy and empathy toward the victim; and were more likely to have favorable perceptions of the victim and victim's family as well as unfavorable perceptions of the offender. We found that these positive feelings toward the victim and family were in turn related to a heightened risk of them imposing the death penalty. We found evidence that part of the effect of VIE on the decision to impose death was mediated by emotions of sympathy and empathy. We think our findings open the door for future work to put together better the causal story that links VIE to an increased inclination to impose death as well as explore possible remedies.     

REFLECTIONS ON THE STATE OF CONSENSUS-BASED DECISION MAKING IN CHILD WELFARE

Consensus approaches to child protection decision making such as mediation and family group conferencing have become increasingly widespread since first initiated about 25 years ago. They address but are also constrained by paradoxes in the child protection system about commitments to protecting children and to family autonomy. In a series of surveys, interviews, and dialogues, mediation and conferencing researchers and practitioners discussed the key issues that face their work: clarity about purpose, system support, family empowerment, professional qualifications, and coordination among different types of consensus-building efforts. Consensus-based decision making in child protection will continue to expand and grow but will also continue to confront these challenges.     

THE EFFECT OF GENDER ON THE DECISION TO INCARCERATE BEFORE AND AFTER THE INTRODUCTION OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES*

The present study explores the relationships between gender and imprisonment decisions in Minnesota before and after the introduction of sentencing guidelines. Results from a series of logistic regression models indicate that gender alone did not have a significant impact on the likelihood of imprisonment, but women with dependent children were significantly less likely to be imprisoned before sentencing guidelines and in the years subsequent to their implementation. The findings suggest that despite the introduction of sentencing reforms, court officials tend to return to issues of substantive justice, and they appear unable to shed their individual or organizational ideas of fairness in sentencing.     

THE EFFECT OF CRIMINAL VICTIMIZATION ON A HOUSEHOLD'S MOVING DECISION*

Only a small body of research addresses the impact of criminal victimization on moving (Skogan, 1990; Taub et al. 1984). Knowledge of this under-researched relationship is important for three reasons. First, moving is costly to the victim both in monetary and psychological terms. Second, if a victimization-mobility relationship exists, then it may partially explain why people migrate to suburban areas from cities. Third, because residential mobility reduces social control that, in turn, potentially results in more crime, evidence that criminal victimization leads to more mobility may help explain a cycle that perpetuates disorder and neighborhood decline (Bursik and Grasmick, 1993; Horwitz, 1990; Miethe and Meier, 1994; Skogan, 1990; Skogan and Maxfield, 1981). This study uses a longitudinal version of the National Crime Survey that includes 22, 375 households to test the hypothesis that criminal victimization is associated with an increased probability that a household moves.     

THE IMPACT OF THE ETHNICITY AND GENDER OF DEFENDANTS ON THE DECISION TO REJECT OR DISMISS FELONY CHARGES*

While social scientists have long been interested in the issue of racial and sexual discrimination within the criminal justice system, they have concentrated on the decisions to convict and sentence and have paid relatively little attention to the decision to prosecute. This study examines the issue of pretrial discrimination by focusing on the prosecutor's decision to reject or dismiss charges against black, Anglo, and Hispanic male and female defendants in Los Angeles. The data reveal a pattern of discrimination in favor of female defendants and against black and Hispanic defendants. Hispanic males are most likely to be prosecuted fully, followed by black males, Anglo males, and females of all ethnic groups.     

THE IMPACT OF CLIENT AND EVALUATOR GENDER ON CUSTODY EVALUATIONS

Fifty-one child custody evaluations from registries of the Family Court of Australia were analysed for evidence of sex role and sex trait stereotyping by using a content analysis program. The categories used in the content analysis included expressive and instrumental sex role traits, power-related behaviours, communications about family and marital interactions, basic care-taking, attachment, and the parents' environment. When analysed by the gender of the evaluator, it was found that male and female evaluators significantly favoured the parent of their own gender in specific categories. It is suggested that the court context has been important in influencing the content of the stereotype.     

LAWYER'S DUTY TO DISCUSS ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has been championed for its power to devise agreements that meet the parents' and the children's needs and for its ability to encourage parties to work together, eventually leading to stable agreements. The Model Rules of Professional Conduct do not create any ethical duty to advise, suggest, or encourage lawyers to discuss ADR with their domestic relations client. In the medical field, patients are given a choice of treatment under the informed consent doctrine, but there is no analogous doctrine in the legal field. The Model Rules of Professional Conduct should be revised to reflect the best interests of children, as well as client choice. Clients, specifically parents in domestic relation matters, are entitled to know their options, and lawyers should be obligated to provide them with the information that will enable them to make informed decisions–decisions that will benefit their children and ultimately our nation.     

ON AMBIGUITY IN PERCEPTIONS OF RISK:IMPLICATIONS FOR CRIMINAL DECISION MAKING AND DETERRENCE*

Deterrence theorists and researchers have argued that the critical dimension of sanction certainty is its level—increasing the certainty of punishment from a lower to a higher level will inhibit criminal conduct. However, the true certainty of punishment is rarely known with much precision. Both Sherman (1990) and Nagin (1998) have suggested that ambiguity about the level of punishment certainty is itself consequential in the decision to commit or refrain from crime. Here, we investigate this proposition. We find some evidence that individuals are “ambiguity averse” for decisions involving losses such as criminal punishments. This finding means that a more ambiguous perceived certainty of punishment is a greater deterrent of some crimes than a nominally equivalent but less ambiguous one. However, this effect depends on how large an individual's risk certainty perception is initially. That is, we find evidence for “boundary effects” (Casey and Scholz, 1991a, 1991b) in which this effect holds for lower probabilities but reverses for higher ones. For higher detection probabilities, individuals become “ambiguity seeking” such that a less ambiguous detection probability has more deterrent value than a nominally equivalent but more ambiguous detection probability. Results are presented from two distinct, but complementary, analysis samples and empirical approaches. These samples include a survey to college students with several hypothetical choice problems and data from the Pathways to Desistance study, a longitudinal investigation of serious adolescent offenders transitioning from adolescence to young adulthood.     

CLIENT AND COUNSELLOR PERCEPTIONS OF THE PROCESS AND OUTCOMES OF FAMILY COURT COUNSELLING IN CASES INVOLVING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

The Family Court of Australia provides conciliation counselling to couples who are involved in disputes regarding their children following separation. In cases where domestic violence is involved, the appropriateness of providing counselling has been seriously questioned. This study is an extension of earlier work completed by the authors that specifically examined client satisfaction with counselling in cases involving domestic violence. This article examines client and counsellor perceptions of the counselling process and its outcomes.