Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Bryan Myers, A. Rosol, Eric Boelter (2003)
Polygraph Evidence and Juror Judgments: The Effects of Corroborating Evidence1Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33
M. Minasi (1990)
Prove it, 5
Sunghan Kim, L. Hasher (2005)
The Attraction Effect in Decision Making: Superior Performance by Older AdultsQuarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58
(1972)
Latitude of severity of sentencing
R. Dhar, S. Nowlis, S. Sherman (2000)
Trying Hard or Hardly Trying: An Analysis of Context Effects in ChoiceJournal of Consumer Psychology, 9
N. Vidmar (1972)
Effects of decision alternatives on the verdicts and social perceptions of simulated jurors.Journal of personality and social psychology, 22 2
L. Wilson, E. Greene, E. Loftus (1986)
Beliefs about forensic hypnosis.The International journal of clinical and experimental hypnosis, 34 2
J. Cohen (1992)
A power primerPsychological Bulletin, 112
G. Maxwell, F. Fourie, D. Bates (1988)
The effect of restricted and unrestricted cafeteria diets upon the energy exchange and body-composition of weanling ratsNutrition reports international, 37
Itamar Simonson, A. Tversky (1992)
Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness AversionJournal of Marketing Research, 29
(2006)
Criminal proceedings in Scottish courts: Statistical Bulletin: CrJ/ 2006/3
C. Studebaker, J. Robbennolt, Steven Penrod, Maithilee Pathak-Sharma, Jennifer Groscup, Jennifer Devenport (2002)
Studying Pretrial Publicity Effects: New Methods for Improving Ecological Validity and Testing External ValidityLaw and Human Behavior, 26
J. Cohen (1988)
Stastistical power analyses for the behavioural sciences
(2006)
£ 5 m cut from miscarriage of justice payments
R. MacCoun, N. Kerr (1988)
Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: jurors' bias for leniency.Journal of personality and social psychology, 54 1
B. Grofman (1985)
The effect of restricted and unrestricted verdict options on juror choiceSocial Science Research, 14
L. Blunt, H. Stock (1985)
Guilty but mentally ill: An alternative verdictBehavioral Sciences & The Law, 3
J. Doyle, D. O'Connor, G. Reynolds, P. Bottomley (1999)
The robustness of the asymmetrically dominated effect: Buying frames, phantom alternatives, and in‐store purchasesPsychology & Marketing, 16
A. Chernev (2004)
Extremeness aversion and attribute-balance effects in choiceJournal of Consumer Research, 31
M. Kaplan, S. Krupa (1985)
Severe Penalties under the Control of Others Can Reduce Guilt Verdicts.
R. Borum, S. Fulero (1999)
Empirical Research on the Insanity Defense and Attempted Reforms: Evidence Toward Informed PolicyLaw and Human Behavior, 23
B. Bornstein (1999)
The Ecological Validity of Jury Simulations: Is the Jury Still Out?Law and Human Behavior, 23
Ran Kivetz, O. Netzer, V. Srinivasan
Research Paper Series Graduate School of Business Stanford University Alternative Models for Capturing the Compromise Effect in Multiattribute Logit Choice Models
Scott Highhouse (1996)
Context-Dependent Selection: The Effects of Decoy and Phantom Job CandidatesOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65
(1995)
Anti-crime politicians quick to exploit verdict
Joel Huber, J. Payne, C. Puto (1981)
Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity & the Similarity Hypothesis.
Yigang O’Curry, R. Pitts (1995)
The Attraction Effect and Political Choice in Two ElectionsJournal of Consumer Psychology, 4
D. Sharp (1961)
The British Broadcasting CorporationNature, 192
(1994)
Juries and Verdicts: Report on improving the delivery of justice in Scotland
Jacob Cohen (1992)
QUANTITATIVE METHODS IN PSYCHOLOGY A Power Primer
P. Duff (1999)
The Scottish Criminal Jury: A Very Peculiar InstitutionLaw and contemporary problems, 62
V. Hamilton, R. Hastie, Steven Penrod, N. Pennington (1985)
Inside the Jury.Contemporary Sociology, 14
K. Kaplan, R. Simon (1972)
LATITUDE AND SEVERITY OF SENTENCING OPTIONS, RACE OF THE VICTIM AND DECISIONS OF SIMULATED JURORS: SOME ISSUES ARISING FROM THE "ALGIERS MOTEL" TRIALLaw & Society Review, 7
Joseph Barbato (2005)
Scotland's Bastard Verdict: Intermediacy and the Unique Three-Verdict SystemIndiana international and comparative law review, 15
C. Connelly (1999)
Criminal justice in Scotland
R. Stubblefield (1966)
Behavioral sciences and the law.The American journal of orthopsychiatry, 36 5
C. Sedikides, D. Ariely, Nils Olsen (1999)
Contextual and procedural determinants of partner selection : Of asymmetric dominance and prominenceSocial Cognition, 17
Itamar Simonson (1989)
Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise EffectsJournal of Consumer Research, 16
Scott Decker (1979)
Law and Society ReviewJournal of Drug Issues, 9
Ran Kivetz, O. Netzer, V. Srinivasan (2004)
Alternative Models for Capturing the Compromise EffectJournal of Marketing Research, 41
(1996)
The Not Proven verdict: Jury mythology and ‘moral
Chantal Koch, Dennis Devine (1999)
Effects of Reasonable Doubt Definition and Inclusion of a Lesser Charge on Jury VerdictsLaw and Human Behavior, 23
K. Larntz (1975)
Reanalysis of Vidmar's data on the effects of decision alternatives on verdicts of simulated jurorsJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31
(2005)
Not Proven’ verdict faces European test
A. Robey (1978)
Guilty but mentally ill.The Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 6 4
P. Duff (1996)
The Not Proven verdict: Jury mythology and ‘moral panics’Juridical Review, 1
A. Chernev (2004)
Extremeness Aversion and Attribute-Balance Effects in ChoiceBehavioral Marketing eJournal
H. Bernstein, D. Horowitz, David Lange, H. Powell, Melvin Shimm, J. Weistart, R. Danner, Claire Germain, B. Baccari, Lisa Eichhorn, James Farrin, K. Cashion, Steven Chabinsky, Thomas Contois, James Glenister, Stephen Armitage, J. Cannon, C. Connolly, David Dabbs, Katherine Flanagan, P. Franklin, Donald Nielsen, Christopher Hart, Charles North, William O'Neil, Jane Schaefer, Eric Lieberman, Janet Moore, A. Walsh, Raymond Wierciszewski (1990)
LAW AND CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS
(1985)
The Editorial Notebook; Between guilt and innocence
In most adversarial systems, jurors in criminal cases consider the binary verdict alternatives of “Guilty” and “Not guilty.” However, in some circumstances and jurisdictions, a third verdict option is available: Not Proven. The Not Proven verdict essentially reflects the view that the defendant is indeed culpable, but that the prosecution has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Like a Not Guilty verdict, the Not Proven verdict results in an acquittal. The main aim of the two studies reported here was to determine how, and under what circumstances, jurors opt to use the Not Proven verdict across different case types and when the strength of the evidence varies. In both studies, jurors were more likely to choose a Not Proven verdict over a Not Guilty verdict when the alternative was available. When evidence against the defendant was only moderately strong and a Not Proven verdict option was available (Study 2), there was also a significant reduction in the conviction rate. Results also showed that understanding of the Not Proven verdict was poor, highlighting inadequacies in the nature of judicial instructions relating to this verdict.
Law and Human Behavior – American Psychological Association
Published: Jun 17, 2008
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.