The relationship between victim impact statements and judicial decision making: An archival analysis of sentencing outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Victim impact statements (VISs) are testimonies that convey the emotional, physical, and financial harm that victims have suffered as the result of a crime. Although VISs are often presented to the court at sentencing, it is unclear whether they impact judicial decisions regarding sentencing. HYPOTHESES: We did not have any formal a priori hypothesis but instead examined five research questions. The first two explored whether the relationship between the victim and the offender, as well as the type of crime, was associated with differences in the likelihood of VIS submission. The following two explored whether the presence of a VIS was associated with differences in sentencing outcomes (incarceration, probation, ancillary orders, parole eligibility). The final research question explored whether the number of VISs and the delivery format (oral vs. written) was associated with differences in sentencing outcomes. METHOD: We coded and analyzed 1,332 sentencing rulings across Canada from 2016 to 2018 that included the phrase "impact statement." We coded for 87 variables, including information about the VIS, the victims and offenders, crime type, and sentencing outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, VISs are more likely to be delivered in cases in which the crime is more severe. Once we controlled for the type of crime, sentencing outcomes were unrelated to the presence of VISs. Sentences were longer when VISs were delivered orally than in written format and when more than one statement was submitted. CONCLUSIONS: The relationship between VISs and sentencing outcomes is closely tied to several extralegal factors and should be investigated further. This research offers insight into the mechanics of victim evidence at sentencing. The findings of this study have implications for lawyers, researchers, judges, victims, offenders, and other stakeholders in our legal systems. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

High-risk interrogation: using the "Mr. Big Technique" to elicit confessions.

Kassin et al. (Police-Induced Confessions: Risk Factors and Recommendation, 2009) provide a detailed and thoughtful analysis of how police interrogation practices might elicit false confessions from innocent suspects. The purpose of this commentary is to provide a brief review of a relatively recent development in Canadian police investigation practice and discuss how this procedure may increase the likelihood of police-induced false confessions. The so-called "Mr. Big Technique" is a non-custodial interrogation tactic wherein suspects are drawn into a supposed criminal organization (actually an elaborate police sting) and subsequently told that to move up in the organization, they must confess to a crime. In this article, we describe this remarkable interrogation technique and discuss issues relevant to the potential induction of false confessions.

Third-party attitudes and strain reactions to the threat of a labor strike.

The authors examined how dispute-related stressors predicted strain experienced by third parties (N = 270) and their perceptions of a potential strike by part-time faculty. Immediately preceding a strike deadline, the authors surveyed students on their support for the union, perceived fairness, perceived effects of the impending strike, and perceived control. The authors also measured perceptions regarding information about the strike and psychological strain. Students facing increased disruptions because of the potential strike had decreased perceived control over their own tasks and over the university policies, and they experienced higher strain. Having more information about the dispute was associated with increased perceived task and policy control but was unassociated with strain. Both task and policy control moderated the relationship between disruptions and strain.

How effective are the cross-examination and expert testimony safeguards? Jurors' perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures.

Mock jurors (N = 800) viewed a videotaped trial that included information about a lineup identification procedure. Suggestiveness of the eyewitness identification procedure varied in terms of foil, instruction, and presentation biases. Expert testimony regarding the factors that influence lineup suggestiveness was also manipulated. Criteria included juror ratings of lineup suggestiveness and fairness, ratings of defendant culpability, and verdicts. Jurors were sensitive to foil bias but only minimally sensitive to instruction and presentation biases. Expert testimony enhanced juror sensitivity only to instruction bias. These results have implications for the effectiveness of cross-examination and expert testimony as safeguards against erroneous convictions resulting from mistaken identifications.

Eyewitness testimony in occupational accident investigations: towards a research agenda.

Accident investigation is frequently cited as the cornerstone of an effective occupational health and safety program. We suggest that the literature on accident investigation is based on a model of witnesses as neutral and accurate recording devices. The literature on eyewitness testimony and criminal investigation offers strikingly different conclusions. We review these findings and point to their implication for research on accident investigation in occupational health and safety contexts.