Download
1 / 15
150 likes | 256 Vues
The evidential value of suspects ’ statements in criminal procedures: a content analysis. Pieter Tersago Prof.dr. Miet Vanderhallen Prof.dr. Joëlle Rozie Prof.dr. Bernard Hubeau University of Antwerp, Faculty of Law. 1. Introduction. Research question:
E N D
The evidential value of suspects’ statements in criminal procedures: a content analysis Pieter Tersago Prof.dr. Miet Vanderhallen Prof.dr. Joëlle Rozie Prof.dr. Bernard Hubeau University of Antwerp, Faculty of Law
1. Introduction • Research question: How do criminal judges evaluate suspects’ statements? • The characteristics of the interview/suspect • Relative to the other evidence
2. A content analysis • Analysis of 100 criminal investigation files (cfr. inquisitorial procedure: “dossier”) • Court of Appeal of Antwerp + trial judges in Antwerp/Hasselt (no jury trial!) • Burglaries • 2010 • Quantitative and qualitative analysis of the file and the judgment
3. The suspects’ statements • During the pretrial investigation: • 2% not interviewed • 56% admissions/confessions (partial/full) • 42% denials • During the trial, another 8% admits or doesn’t challenge the accusation • So finally, 64% of the suspects agrees with the prosecutor’s charge
4. The verdict (N=100) X²= 19,198; p>0,05
5. Verdict Court of Appeal (N=45) X²= 7,697 ; p=0,071
6. The other evidence • Suspects’ statements rarely the only piece of evidence in the criminal file: • Witnesses: 72% (67% inculpatory) • Material evidence: 61% (59% inculpatory) • Co-suspects: 50% (49% inculpatory) • Other evidence: 26% ( 24% inculpatory) • Forensic evidence: 24% (20% inculpatory) • Docs, audio-video: 9% (9% inculpatory)
7.The judicial assessment of confessions • Confession/no challenge: always guilty verdict (cfr. other research such as Leo & Drizin, 2004) • Even when other exculpatory evidence • Almost never an explicit evaluation the confession: • Content and consistency with other evidence • Personal/situational risk factors false confessions
7.The judicial assessment of confessions • Instead, confession just mentioned in the reasoning: • As one of the elements of proof (N=37) • As the only explicitly named (N=22) “the facts are proven by the pretrial investigation. Besides, the defendant admits the accusation”
7.The judicial assessment of confessions • Confession evidence evaluated at face value? => confession as heuristic that facilitates the judicial decision-making (cfr. dual process theories) • Nevertheless, false confessions in those less severe crimes as well (Gudjonsson et.al., 2008)
8.The judicial assessment of denials • Denial: complex decision-making task for the judge: 2 conflicting stories of the facts… • How to handle? • (dis)confirmity with other evidence • Plausibility of the denying story • Common sense presumptions • Other lies of the suspect; inconsistenties • In 73,5% (73,7% in CA) of the cases: guilty verdict
8.The judicial assessment of denials • When the other evidence isn’t convincing enough and/or the suspect’s story isn’t implausible: “reasonable doubt” => not guilty verdict (9-12,5%) • Contrary to a confession, a denial is not believed at face value (cfr. Levine, Kim & Blair 2010) => more rational (tough not always!) deliberation of the statement
9.Conclusions • Confessions: • lead always to a conviction • Heuristicly approach, facilitator in judge’s decision making • Denials: • ¾ convicted • More thorougly analysed (cfr. motivation to rational decisionmaking: Petty & Ciacoppo 1986) • Cass. 13/06/2011: requires more extensive reasoning UNLESS confession…
9.Conclusions • Limitations: • Limited sample • Limited judicial reasoning: no clear insight in the decision-making process of the judge => Next step in the research: interviewing judges
