Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Crime Prototypes, Objective Versus Subjective Culpability, and a Commonsense Balance

Crime Prototypes, Objective Versus Subjective Culpability, and a Commonsense Balance Crime prototypes, which have been linked to jurors' story constructions and verdicts, were elaborated through narratives, yielding 600 detailed stories, across seven different cases, in two experiments. These stories were manipulated under conditions that explored the prototypicality of the case, she verdict outcome, and whether it was a rightful or wrongful decision; the latter two manipulations, when combined, allowed for a comparison of actual outcomes versus true outcomes, and a measure of true culpability. Three or four prototypes, rather than one, emerged for all crimes, and though extraordinary rather than typical, they were far from simplistic. While the subjective element of motive dominated the culpability determination in Experiment I, objectivity prevailed in most cases in Experiment II. A commonsense and complex balancing of objective and subjective factors is the rule, while simplism was the rare exception. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Law and Human Behavior Springer Journals

Crime Prototypes, Objective Versus Subjective Culpability, and a Commonsense Balance

Finkel, Norman; Groscup, Jennifer
Law and Human Behavior , Volume 21 (2) – Sep 24, 2004
Download PDF
22 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/crime-prototypes-objective-versus-subjective-culpability-and-a-Li3RIQ6ukP

References (37)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 by Plenum Publishing Corporation
Subject
Psychology; Law and Psychology; Criminology and Criminal Justice, general; Personality and Social Psychology; Community and Environmental Psychology
ISSN
0147-7307
eISSN
1573-661X
DOI
10.1023/A:1024830413404
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Crime prototypes, which have been linked to jurors' story constructions and verdicts, were elaborated through narratives, yielding 600 detailed stories, across seven different cases, in two experiments. These stories were manipulated under conditions that explored the prototypicality of the case, she verdict outcome, and whether it was a rightful or wrongful decision; the latter two manipulations, when combined, allowed for a comparison of actual outcomes versus true outcomes, and a measure of true culpability. Three or four prototypes, rather than one, emerged for all crimes, and though extraordinary rather than typical, they were far from simplistic. While the subjective element of motive dominated the culpability determination in Experiment I, objectivity prevailed in most cases in Experiment II. A commonsense and complex balancing of objective and subjective factors is the rule, while simplism was the rare exception.

Journal

Law and Human Behavior – Springer Journals

Published: Sep 24, 2004

There are no references for this article.