As expressed by the famous Blackstone’s ratio, the beyond reasonable doubt standard of proof is b... more As expressed by the famous Blackstone’s ratio, the beyond reasonable doubt standard of proof is based on the law’s primary motivation to avoid false conviction at the expense of increasing the probability of false acquittal. In contrast, jurors may have common-sense motivation to avoid both types of error. With 100 juror-eligible adults in Korea, the present study demonstrated that utilities of the two types of decision error were evaluated relative to those of the correct decisions rather than each other. The utility of false conviction was evaluated relative to that of a correct acquittal of an innocent defendant, and the utility of false acquittal in relation to that of a correct conviction of a guilty defendant. If this psychological configuration of the utilities is held by jurors in the courtroom, it suggests that they may have double standards for the fact-finding; one to decide on the question of guilt under the presumption of innocence and the other to decide on the question of innocence deduced from the presumption of guilt. Double standards will increase the frequency of punishing innocent defendants.
ABSTRACT The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is based on the law's primary motiva... more ABSTRACT The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is based on the law's primary motivation to avoid false conviction even at the expense of increasing the probability of false acquittal. Individual jurors, however, have common sense motivations to make factually correct decisions by avoiding both types of error. As a result jurors may interpret the standard of reasonable doubt correctly but deviate from that interpretation in predictable ways when they apply the standard in court. This study makes three hypotheses: (1) jurors are less confident when deciding on acquittal than when deciding upon conviction, (2) conviction is associated with a downward adjustment of the interpreted stringency of the standard at the time of application, and (3) a highly stringent interpretation of the standard is associated with a severe downward adjustment of that stringency at the time of application. The study asked 260 juror-eligible participants to examine a trial scenario. The participants first interpreted the stringency of the legal standard on a probability scale. They then judged the probability of the defendant's guilt, decided on a verdict, and rated their confidence in that verdict. The findings strongly supported all three hypotheses. Application and implication of the study were discussed.
A recent trend in court is for defense attorneys to introduce brain scans and other forms of biom... more A recent trend in court is for defense attorneys to introduce brain scans and other forms of biomedical information (BI) into criminal trials as mitigating evidence. The present study investigates how BI, when considered in combination with a defendant's childhood information (CI), can influence the length of a defendant's sentence. We hypothesized that certain combinations of BI and CI result in shorter sentences because they suggest that the defendant poses less of a threat to society. Participants were asked to read accounts of the trial of a murder suspect and, based on the information therein, recommend a sentence as if they were the judge. The defendant was diagnosed with psychopathy, but biomedical information regarding that diagnosis was included or excluded depending on the BI condition. The defendant was further described as growing up in either a loving or abusive family. The results showed that, if BI was present in the trial account, the defendant from an abusiv...
Intranasal oxytocin attenuates attentional bias for eating and fat shape stimuli in patients with... more Intranasal oxytocin attenuates attentional bias for eating and fat shape stimuli in patients with anorexia nervosa
As expressed by the famous Blackstone’s ratio, the beyond reasonable doubt standard of proof is b... more As expressed by the famous Blackstone’s ratio, the beyond reasonable doubt standard of proof is based on the law’s primary motivation to avoid false conviction at the expense of increasing the probability of false acquittal. In contrast, jurors may have common-sense motivation to avoid both types of error. With 100 juror-eligible adults in Korea, the present study demonstrated that utilities of the two types of decision error were evaluated relative to those of the correct decisions rather than each other. The utility of false conviction was evaluated relative to that of a correct acquittal of an innocent defendant, and the utility of false acquittal in relation to that of a correct conviction of a guilty defendant. If this psychological configuration of the utilities is held by jurors in the courtroom, it suggests that they may have double standards for the fact-finding; one to decide on the question of guilt under the presumption of innocence and the other to decide on the question of innocence deduced from the presumption of guilt. Double standards will increase the frequency of punishing innocent defendants.
ABSTRACT The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is based on the law's primary motiva... more ABSTRACT The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is based on the law's primary motivation to avoid false conviction even at the expense of increasing the probability of false acquittal. Individual jurors, however, have common sense motivations to make factually correct decisions by avoiding both types of error. As a result jurors may interpret the standard of reasonable doubt correctly but deviate from that interpretation in predictable ways when they apply the standard in court. This study makes three hypotheses: (1) jurors are less confident when deciding on acquittal than when deciding upon conviction, (2) conviction is associated with a downward adjustment of the interpreted stringency of the standard at the time of application, and (3) a highly stringent interpretation of the standard is associated with a severe downward adjustment of that stringency at the time of application. The study asked 260 juror-eligible participants to examine a trial scenario. The participants first interpreted the stringency of the legal standard on a probability scale. They then judged the probability of the defendant's guilt, decided on a verdict, and rated their confidence in that verdict. The findings strongly supported all three hypotheses. Application and implication of the study were discussed.
A recent trend in court is for defense attorneys to introduce brain scans and other forms of biom... more A recent trend in court is for defense attorneys to introduce brain scans and other forms of biomedical information (BI) into criminal trials as mitigating evidence. The present study investigates how BI, when considered in combination with a defendant's childhood information (CI), can influence the length of a defendant's sentence. We hypothesized that certain combinations of BI and CI result in shorter sentences because they suggest that the defendant poses less of a threat to society. Participants were asked to read accounts of the trial of a murder suspect and, based on the information therein, recommend a sentence as if they were the judge. The defendant was diagnosed with psychopathy, but biomedical information regarding that diagnosis was included or excluded depending on the BI condition. The defendant was further described as growing up in either a loving or abusive family. The results showed that, if BI was present in the trial account, the defendant from an abusiv...
Intranasal oxytocin attenuates attentional bias for eating and fat shape stimuli in patients with... more Intranasal oxytocin attenuates attentional bias for eating and fat shape stimuli in patients with anorexia nervosa
Uploads
Papers by Yoori Seong