Decision making in joined criminal trials: The influence of charge similarity,evidence similarity,and limiting instructions

The present research investigated decision-making processes in joined trials of multiple offenses. Subjects judged videotaped trials of three joined charges in a factorial design that varied charge similarity, evidence similarity, and judges' instructions designed to reduce judgement biases; or judged one of several charges presented individually. The results indicated that subjects were more likely to convict a defendant in a joined trial than on the same charge tried by itself, particularly when the charge was presented in the third position. Convictions were more frequent when joined charges were similar, and judges' instructions significantly reduced conviction rates. Subjects judging joined trials confused evidence among charges, rated the prosecution's evidence as stronger, and rated the defendent less favorably than subjects judging single trials. The findings were compared statistically to the results of previous research, and it was concluded that increased convictions in joined trials are robust effects.This research is based on part of a doctoral dissertation by S. Tanford at the University of Wisconsin. The research was supported by National Institute of Justice Grant No. 81-LJ-CX-0048 to S. Penrod.     

IMPRACTICAL RECONCILIATION

This article examines the events and texts of the Huggins–Bell debate, in view of the revival of Bell's ‘everyone's business’ position in the current context of the Northern Territory Intervention. I argue that while there are disjunctures between the position Bell espoused and the measures taken in the Intervention, the Intervention's policy approach of ‘practical reconciliation’ shares the signature features of Bell's position. As in Bell's work, the discourses supporting the Intervention use an ideology/practice binary to defend the morality of intervention, refuse to treat issues of lateral violence and racism intersectionally, and claim to bolster the authority of Indigenous women while in practice undermining that authority.