Wrongful convictions and the Blackstone ratio: An empirical analysis of public attitudes

Punishment and Society

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 32-49

  de Keijser, Jan W ^a   de Lange, Evianne GM ^a   van Wilsem, Johan A ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Blackstone ratio; public opinion; standard of proof; wrongful convictions

Indexed keywords

EID: 84891884663     PISSN: 14624745     EISSN: 17413095     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1462474513504800     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Bailey RADesign of Comparative Experiments: Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008:.
2. Bentham JA Treatise on Judicial Evidence. London: JW Paget; 1825:.
3. Blackstone WCommentaries on the Laws of England. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1765:.
4. British Social Attitudes (2006) British social attitudes information system. Available at: http://www.britsocat.com (accessed 31 January 2013).
5. Cassell PG.Exonerating the innocent: Pretrial innocence procedures: Freeing the guilty without protecting the innocent: Some skeptical observations on proposed new 'innocence' procedures.New York Law School Law Review. 2011;56:1063-1098.
6. Chapman B,Mirrlees-Black C,Brawn CImproving Public Attitudes to the Criminal Justice System: The Impact of Information. Home Office Research Study no. 245. London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate; 2002:.
7. Cochran JK,Chamlin MB.Can information change public opinion? Another test of the Marshall Hypothesis.Journal of Criminal Justice. 2005;33:573-584.
8. Crombag H,Van Koppen P,Wagenaar WDubieuze zaken: De psychologie van strafrechtelijk bewijs. Amsterdam: Contact; 1994:.
9. De Keijser JW,Elffers HSocial Psychology of Punishment of Crime. Bieneck SOswald MEHupfeld-Heinemann J, ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009:55-74.
10. De Keijser JW,Van Koppen PJ.Paradoxes of proof and punishment: Psychological pitfalls in judicial decision making.Legal and Criminological Psychology. 2007;12:189-205.
11. De Keijser JW,Van Koppen PJ,Elffers H.Bridging the gap between judges and the public? A multi-method study.Journal of Experimental Criminology. 2007;3 (2): 131-161.
12. Dhami MK.On measuring quantitative interpretations of reasonable doubt.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. 2008;14:353-363.
13. Doob AN,Roberts JPublic Attitudes to Sentencing: Surveys from Five Countries. Walker NHough M, ed. Aldershot: Gower; 1988:111-133.
14. ESS Round 5: European Social Survey Round 5 Data (2010) Data file edition 3.0. Norwegian Social Science Data Services, Norway - Data Archive and distributor of ESS data.
15. Green DA.Public opinion versus public judgment about crime: Correcting the 'comedy of errors'.British Journal of Criminology. 2006;46:131-154.
16. Halvorsen V.Is it better that ten guilty persons go free than that one innocent person be convicted?.Criminal Justice Ethics. 2004;23 (2): 3-13.
17. Hastie R,Penrod SD,Pennington NInside the Jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1984:.
18. Hawkins K.On legal decision-making.Washington and Lee Law Review. 1986;43 (4): 1161-1243.
19. Hough M,Park AChanging Attitudes to Punishment: Public Opinion, Crime and Justice. Roberts JVHough M, ed. Cullompton, Devon: Willan; 2002:163-183.
20. Indermaur D,Hough MChanging Attitudes to Punishment: Public Opinion, Crime and Justice. Roberts JVHough M, ed. Cullompton, Devon: Willan; 2002:198-214.
21. Indermaur D,Roberts L,Spiranovic C,Mackenzie G,Gelb K.A matter of judgement: The effect of information and deliberation on public attitudes to punishment.Punishment & Society. 2012;14 (2): 147-165.
22. Lillquist E.Recasting reasonable doubt: Decision theory and the virtues of variability.UC Davis Law Review. 2002;85:190-191.
23. Melton GB,Petrila J,Poythress NG,Slobogin CPsychological Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers. New York: Guilford; 1997:.
24. Mirrlees-Black CChanging Attitudes to Punishment: Public Opinion Crime and Justice. Roberts JHough M, ed. Cullompton, Devon: Willan; 2002:184-197.
25. Nonet P,Selznick PLaw and Society in Transition: Toward Responsive Law. New York: Harper & Row; 1978:.
26. O'Malley KF,Grenig EJ,Lee WCFederal Jury Practice and Instructions. St Paul, MN: West Group; 2000:.
27. Risinger DM.Innocents convicted: An empirically justified factual wrongful conviction rate.Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 2007;97:761-806.
28. Roberts JVRetributivism Has a Past: Has It a Future?. Tonry M, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011:.
29. Roberts JV,Hough MUnderstanding Public Attitudes to Criminal Justice. Berkshire: Open University Press; 2005:.
30. Robinson PH (2007) How psychology is changing the punishment theory debate. Scholarship at Penn Law. Paper 138.
31. Robinson PH,Darley JM.The utility of desert.Northwestern University Law Review. 1997;91:453-499.
32. Saunders HDQuantifying Reasonable Doubt: A Proposed Solution to an Equal Protection Problem. Berkeley, CA: The Berkeley Electronic Press; 2005:.
33. Sommer R,Sommer B,Heidmets M.Release of the guilty to protect the innocent.Criminal Justice and Behavior. 1991;18 (4): 480-490.
34. Stalans LJChanging Attitudes to Punishment: Public Opinion, Crime and Justice. Roberts JVHough M, ed. Cullompton, Devon: Willan; 2002:15-32.
35. Starkie TA Practical Treatise on the Law of Evidence. London: John Fairburn; 1824:.
36. State of Connecticut Judicial Branch (2013) Jury instructions. Available at:http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/part2/2.2-3.htm (accessed 8 February 2013).
37. Statistics Netherlands (Centraal Bureau voor Statistiek) (2010a) Monitor: Trends in Beeld- Ministerie van OCW. Opleidingsniveau van de Nederlandse bevolking. Available at: http://www.trendsinbeeld.minocw.nl/grafieken/3_1_2_31.php (accessed 11 March 2011).
38. Statistics Netherlands (Centraal Bureau voor Statistiek) (2010b) Statline. Bevolking kerncijfers. Available at: http://statline.cbs.nl/statweb/.
39. Statistics Netherlands (Centraal Bureau voor Statistiek) (2010c) Statline. Bevolking per maand; leeftijd, geslacht, herkomst, generatie Available at:http://statline.cbs.nl/statweb/.
40. Statistics Netherlands (Centraal Bureau voor Statistiek) (2011) Statline. Bevolking; generatie, geslacht, leeftijd en herkomstgroepering, Available at: http://statline.cbs.nl/statweb/.
41. Stoffelmayr E,Diamond SS.The conflict between precision an flexibility in explaining 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.Psychology, Public Policy and Law. 2000;6 (3): 769-778.
42. Synovate (2011) Politieke Barometer. In detail - week 12. Available at: http://www.synovate.nl/content.asp?targetid=741 (accessed 10 March 2011).
43. Tyler TLegitimacy and Criminal Justice: International Perspectives. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2007:.
44. Van Koppen PHet Recht van Binnen: Psychologie van het recht. Van Koppen PHessing DMerckelback HCrombag H, ed. Deventer: Kluwer; 2002:871-885.
45. Van Sliedregt E (2009) Tien tegen één: Een hedendaagse bezinning op de onschuldpresumptie. Den Haag: Boom Juridische uitgevers.
46. Volokh A.N guilty men.University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 1997;146 (1): 173-211.
47. Wright DB,Strubler KA,Vallano JR.Statistical techniques for juror and jury research.Legal and Criminological Psychology. 2011;16:90-125.