Law and order: the timing of mitigating evidence affects punishment decisions

References

• Alicke, M. D. (1992). Culpable causation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 368–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.368
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Appelbaum, P. S., & Scurich, N. (2014). Impact of behavioral genetic evidence on the adjudication of criminal behavior. The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 42(1), 91–100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnett, M. E., Brodsky, S. L., & Davis, C. M. (2004). When mitigation evidence makes a difference: Effects of psychological mitigating evidence on sentencing decisions in capital trials. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 22(6), 751–770. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.591
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behrend, T. S., Sharek, D. J., Meade, A. W., & Wiebe, E. N. (2011). The viability of crowdsourcing for survey research. Behavior Research Methods, 43(3), 800–813. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0081-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell Holleran, L. L., Vaughan, T. J., & Vandiver, D. M. (2016). Juror decision‐making in death penalty sentencing when presented with defendant’s history of child abuse or neglect. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 34(6), 742–766. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2271
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berryessa, C. M. (2016). Genetic essentialist biases, stigma, and lack of mitigating impact on punishment decisions. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 3(2), 359–364. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsw023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bilz, K. (2010). We don’t want to hear it: Psychology, literature and the narrative model of judging (pp. 429–488). University of Illinois Law Review.
   Google Scholar
• Bilz, K., & Nadler, J. (2009). Law, psychology, and morality. In B. H. Ross (Series Ed.), D. M. Bartels, C. W. Bauman, L. J. Skitka, & D. L. Medin (Vol. Eds.), Psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 50. Moral judgment and decision making (pp. 101–132). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)00403-9
   Google Scholar
• Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1037/14805-009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlsmith, K. M., & Sood, A. M. (2009). The fine line between interrogation and retribution. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(1), 191–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.08.025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chao, B., & Santos, K. (2019). How evidence of subsequent remedial measures matters. Missouri Law Review, 84, 609–660.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cushman, F. (2008). Crime and punishment: Distinguishing the roles of causal and intentional analyses in moral judgment. Cognition, 108(2), 353–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.03.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cushman, F. (2015). Punishment in humans: From intuitions to institutions. Philosophy Compass, 10(2), 117–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12192
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cushman, F., Sheketoff, R., Wharton, S., & Carey, S. (2013). The development of intent-based moral judgment. Cognition, 127(1), 6–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.11.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darley, J. (2009). Morality in the law: The psychological foundations of citizens’ desires to punish transgressions. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 5(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.4.110707.172335
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005552203727
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drolet, C. E., Hafer, C. L., & Heuer, L. (2016). The role of perceived deservingness in the toleration of human rights violations. Social Justice Research, 29(4), 429–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-016-0273-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-322, title VI, § 60002(a), Sept. 13 108 Stat. 1959, codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. § 3592.
   Google Scholar
• Feigenson, N. R. (1995). The rhetoric of torts: How advocates help jurors think about causation, reasonableness, and responsibility. Hastings Law Journal, 47, 61–160. https://doi.org/10.1037/10358-005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forbes, R. C., & Stellar, J. E. (2022). When the ones we love misbehave: Exploring moral processes within intimate bonds. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(1), 16–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000272
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J. J., & Wistrich, A. J. (2000). Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Review, 86, 777–829. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.257634
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamlin, J. K., Wynn, K., & Bloom, P. (2007). Social evaluation by preverbal infants. Nature, 450(7169), 557–559. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06288
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heuer, L. (2005). What’s just about the criminal justice system-A psychological perspective. JL & Pol’y, 13, 209–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299258009
   Google Scholar
• Heuer, L., Blumenthal, E., Douglas, A., & Weinblatt, T. (1999). A deservingness approach to respect as a relationally based fairness judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(10), 1279–1292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299258009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holyoak, K. J., & Simon, D. (1999). Bidirectional reasoning in decision making by constraint satisfaction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.128.1.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahan, D. M. (2015). Laws of cognition and the cognition of law. Cognition, 135, 56–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.11.025
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kees, J., Berry, C., Burton, S., & Sheehan, K. (2017). An analysis of data quality: Professional panels, student subject pools, and Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Journal of Advertising, 46(1), 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2016.1269304
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelman, M. (2013). Intuitions. Stanford Law Review, 65, 1291–1323.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landy, J. F., & Uhlmann, E. L. (2018). Morality is personal. In K. Gray, & J. Graham (Eds.), Atlas of moral psychology (pp. 121–132). Guilford Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Levin, T. (1967). Toward a more enlightened sentencing procedure. Nebraska Law Review, 45, 499–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/e438152008-038
   Google Scholar
• Lynch, J. M., Lane, J. D., Berryessa, C. M., & Rottman, J. (2019). How information about perpetrators’ nature and nurture influences assessments of their character, mental states, and deserved punishment. Plos One, 14(10), e0224093. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224093
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meixner, J. B. (2022). Modern sentencing mitigation. Northwestern University Law Review, 116, 1–72.
   Google Scholar
• Nadler, J. (2012). Blaming as a social process: The influence of character and moral emotion on blame. Law and Contemporary Problems, 75, 1–31.
   Google Scholar
• Nadler, J., & McDonnell, M. H. (2011). Moral character, motive, and the psychology of blame. Cornell Law Review, 97, 255–300.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(2), 242–258. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.2.242
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1988). Explanation-based decision making: Effects of memory structure on judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 521–533. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.14.3.521
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1990). Practical implications of psychological research on juror and jury decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(1), 90–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167290161007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1991). A cognitive theory of juror decision making: The story model. Cardozo Law Review, 13, 519–557.
   Google Scholar
• Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence: Tests of the story model for juror decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(2), 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.189
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rachlinski, J. J., & Wistrich, A. J. (2017). Judging the judiciary by the numbers: Empirical research on judges. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 13(1), 203–229. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110615-085032
   Google Scholar
• Robbins, P., & Litton, P. (2018). Crime, punishment, and causation: The effect of etiological information on the perception of moral agency. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(1), 118–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000146
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, P. H., & Darley, J. M. (1995). Justice, liability, and blame: Community views and the criminal law. Westview. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429039812-7
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, P. H., Jackowitz, S. E., & Bartels, D. M. (2012). Extralegal punishment factors: A study of forgiveness, hardship, good deeds, apology, remorse, and other such discretionary factors in assessing criminal punishment. Vanderbilt Law Review, 65, 737–826.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uhlmann, E. L., Pizarro, D. A., & Diermeier, D. (2015). A person-centered approach to moral judgment. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 10(1), 72–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614556679
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Warriner, A. B., Kuperman, V., & Brysbaert, M. (2013). Norms of valence, arousal, and dominance for 13,915 English lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1191–1207. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0314-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winter, L., & Uleman, J. S. (1984). When are social judgments made? Evidence for the spontaneousness of trait inferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(2), 237–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.2.237
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, L., & Tsoi, L. (2013). When mental states matter, when they don’t, and what that means for morality. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(8), 585–604. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12044
   Google Scholar