References
- Arce, R., Farina, F., & Egido, A. (1996). Dynamiques dans la décision des jurés [Dynamics in jury decision-making]. Connexions, 67, 111–120.
- Atanasova-Denié, Z., & Tostain, M. (2008). Les processus d’attribution de punitions: Étude des relations entre gravité de l’infraction pénale, caractéristiques de l’auteur, émotions et motivations à punir [Punishment’s attribution processes: Study of the relations between seriousness of the penal infringement, characteristics of the author, emotions and motives for punishment]. Les Cahiers Internationaux de Psychologie Sociale, Numéro 78(2), 21–34. doi:https://doi.org/10.3917/cips.078.0021
- Beccaria, C. (1764). Des delits et des peines [On crimes and punishments] (M. Chevallier, Trans.). Garnier-Flammarion.
- Bentham, J. (1802). Traités de législation civile et pénale [Treaties on civil and criminal legislation]. Bossange.
- Bordel, S., Vernier, C., Dumas, R., Guingouain, G., & Somat, A. (2004). L’expertise psychologique, élément de preuve du jugement judiciaire? [Psychological report, element of evidence of judicial judgment]. Psychologie Française, 49(4), 389–408. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psfr.2004.07.004
- Carlsmith, K. M. (2008). On justifying punishment: The discrepancy between words and actions. Social Justice Research, 21(2), 119–137. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-008-0068-x
- Carlsmith, K. M., & Darley, J. M. (2008). Psychological aspects of retributive justice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 193–236. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00004-4
- Carlsmith, K. M., Darley, J. M., & Robinson, P. H. (2002). Why do we punish? Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(2), 284–299. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.2.284
- Carlsmith, K. M., Monahan, J., & Evans, A. (2007). The function of punishment in the "civil" commitment of sexually violent predators. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25(4), 437–448. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.761
- Cusson, M. (1987). Pourquoi punir? [Why punish?]. Dalloz.
- Darley, J. M., Carlsmith, K. M., & Robinson, P. H. (2000). Incapacitation and just deserts as motives for punishment. Law and Human Behavior, 24(6), 659–683. doi:https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005552203727s
- Desmarais, S. L., Johnson, K. L., & Singh, J. P. (2016). Performance of recidivism risk assessment instruments in US correctional settings. Psychological Services, 13(3), 206–222. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000075
- Dumas, R., & Esnard, C. (2019). Confirmatory information processing in legal decision: Effect of intimate conviction. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 34(3), 246–253. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-019-9316-2
- Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. The American Psychologist, 49(8), 709–724. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.49.8.709
- Esnard, C., & Dumas, R. (2019). L’intime conviction: entre cadres légaux, représentations et pratiques chez les magistrats et jurés en cour d’assises [The intimate conviction: between legal frameworks, representations and practices among magistrates and jurors in the Assize Courts. Bulletin de Psychologie, Numéro559(1), 53–69. doi:https://doi.org/10.3917/bupsy.559.0053
- Esnard, C., Dumas, R., & Bordel, S. (2013). Effects of the instruction of ‘intime conviction’ on judicial information processing. European Review of Applied Psychology, 63(2), 121–128. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2012.12.002
- Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. doi:https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
- Feeley, M., & Simon, J. (1992). The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology, 30(4), 449–474. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01112.x
- Garapon, A. (1997). Bien juger. Essai sur le rituel judiciaire [To judge well. Essay on judicial ritual]. Odile Jacob.
- Graham, S., Weiner, B., & Zucker, G. S. (1997). An attributional analysis of punishment goals and public reactions to O. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(4), 331–346. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297234001
- Hamilton, V. L., & Rytina, S. (1980). Social consensus on norms of justice: Should the punishment fit the crime? American Journal of Sociology, 85(5), 1117–1144. doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/227127
- Harcourt, B. E. (2011). Surveiller et punir à l’âge actuariel: Généalogie et critique [Challenging the actuarial method in penal systems: Genesis and critique]. Déviance et Société, 35(1), 5–33. doi:https://doi.org/10.3917/ds.351.0005
- Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. The Guilford Press.
- Howard, G. S. (1980). Response-shift bias: A problem in evaluating interventions with pre/post self-reports. Evaluation Review, 4(1), 93–106. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X8000400105
- Jacoby, J. E., & Cullen, F. T. (1998). The structure of punishment norms: Applying the Rossi-Berk model. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 89(1), 245–312. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/1144222
- Kant, E. (1980). Critique de la raison pure [Critique of pure reason] (A. J. -L. Delamarre, & F. Marty, Trans.). Gallimard. (Original work published 1781).
- Krauss, D. A., & Lee, D. H. (2003). Deliberating on dangerousness and death: Jurors’ability to differenciate between expert actuarial and clinical predictions of dangerousness. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 26(2), 113–137. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2527(02)00211-X
- Krauss, D. A., & Sales, B. D. (2001). The effects of clinical and scientific expert testimony on juror decision making in capital sentencing. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(2), 267–310. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.7.2.267
- Krauss, D. A., Lieberman, J. D., & Olson, J. (2004). The effects of rational and experiential information processing of expert testimony in death penalty cases. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 22(6), 801–822. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.621
- Krauss, D. A., McCabe, J. G., & Lieberman, J. D. (2012). Dangerously misunderstood: Representative jurors' reactions to expert testimony on future dangerousness in a sexually violent predator trial. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 18(1), 18–49. doi:https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022326807441
- Krauss, D., & Scurich, N. (2014). The impact of case factors on jurors’ decisions in a sexual violent predator hearing. Psychology, Public, Policy, and Law, 20(2), 135–145. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000007
- Marsden, E., & Torgerson, C. J. (2012). Single group, pre-and post-test research designs: Some methodological concerns. Oxford Review of Education, 38(5), 583–616. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2012.731208
- Mary, P. (2001). Pénalité et gestion des risques: Vers une justice ‘actuarielle’ en Europe? [Penalty and risk management: Toward actuarial justice in Europe?]. Déviance et Société, 25(1), 33–51. doi:https://doi.org/10.3917/ds.251.0033
- McFatter, R. M. (1978). Sentencing strategies and justice: Effects of punishment philosophy on sentencing decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(12), 1490–1500. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.12.1490
- Monnery, B. (2016). Prison, reentry and recidivism: Micro-econometric applications. Economies and Finances [Doctoral dissertation]. https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01452006/document
- Monohan, J., & Steadman, H. (1994). Toward the rejuvenation of risk research. In J. Monohan & H. Steadman (Eds.), Violence and mental disorder: Developments in risk assessment (pp. 1–17). University of Chicago Press.
- Moulin, V., & Palaric, R. (2013). À propos de quelques fonctions des expertises judiciaires au pénal [Concerning certain functions of legal expertise in criminal justice]. L'information Psychiatrique, 89(9), 713–721. doi:https://doi.org/10.3917/inpsy.8909.0713
- Niang, A., Testé, B., & Leclerc, C. (2019). Analyse psychosociale du rôle des motivations à punir dans l’usage de l’expertise d’un accusé en contexte de détermination de la peine en France [Psychosocial analysis of the role of goals of punishment in the use of a defendant's expertise in the context of sentencing in France] [Doctoral dissertation]. Université Rennes 2, France.
- Orth, U. (2003). Punishment goals of crime victims. Law and Human Behavior, 27(2), 173–186. doi:https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022547213760
- Oswald, M. E., Hupfeld, J., Klug, S. C., & Gabriel, U. (2002). Lay-perspectives on criminal deviance, goals of punishment, and punitivity. Social Justice Research, 15(2), 85–98. doi:https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019928721720
- Oytana, Y. (2016). Les coûts des expertises judiciaires dans les procédures inquisitoire et accusatoire [The cost of judicial expertise in the inquisitorial and adversarial procedures]. Revue Économique, 67(1), 5–48. doi:https://doi.org/10.3917/reco.pr2.0050
- Reifman, A., & Keyton, K. (2010). Winsorize. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of research design (pp. 1636–1638). SAGE.
- Robinson, E. A., & Doueck, H. J. (1994). Implications of the pre/post/then design for evaluating social group work. Research on Social Work Practice, 4(2), 224–239. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/104973159400400207
- Shuman, D. W., & Sales, B. D. (1998). The admissibility of expert testimony based upon clinical judgment and scientific research. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4(4), 1226–1252. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.4.4.1226
- Tostain, M. (2007). L’influence des motivations à punir sur les jugements de responsabilité et l’attribution de sanction aux auteurs d’infractions pénales [The influence of the motives for punishment on judgments of responsibility and the attribution of sanctions to the perpetrators of criminal offences]. Les Cahiers Internationaux de Psychologie Sociale, Numéro 75–76(3), 35–49. doi:https://doi.org/10.3917/cips.075.0035
- Tostain, M., & Lebreuilly, R. (2013). L'influence des logiques pénales rétributives et utilitaristes sur le niveau d'acceptation de la rétention de sûreté dans les cas de crimes pédophiles [Influence of retributive and utilitarian factors on the acceptance of civil commitment for pedophiles]. Les Cahiers Internationaux de Psychologie Sociale, Numéro 98(2), 237–257. doi:https://doi.org/10.3917/cips.098.0237
- Van Wingerden, S., Van Wilsem, J., & Moerings, M. (2014). Pre-sentence reports and punishment: A quasi-experiment assessing the effects of risk-based pre-sentence reports on sentencing. European Journal of Criminology, 11(6), 723–744. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370814525937
- Vidmar, N., & Miller, D. (1980). Social psychological processes underlying attitudes toward legal punishment. Law & Society Review, 14(3), 565–602. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/3053193
- Viljoen, J. L., Cochrane, D. M., & Jonnson, M. R. (2018). Do risk assessment tools help manage and reduce risk of violence and reoffending? A systematic review. Law and Human Behavior, 42(3), 181–214. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000280
- Warner, K., Davis, J., Spiranovic, C., Cockburn, H., & Freiberg, A. (2019). Why sentence? Comparing the views of jurors, judges and the legislature on the purposes of sentencing in Victoria. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 19(1), 26–44. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895817738557
- Weiner, B., Graham, S., & Reyna, C. (1997). An attributional examination of retributive versus utilitarian philosophies of punishment. Social Justice Research, 10(4), 431–451. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02683293