Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-pfhbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T17:33:36.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of Procedural Modifications on Evaluations of Plea Bargaining

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2024

Pauline Houlden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An experiment was conducted to assess the preferences of undergraduates and inmates for two possible modifications of plea bargaining: allowing the defendant to participate and including a state-paid or community-volunteer mediator in the negotiation. Respondents were asked to role-play a defendant who was either innocent or guilty of a murder and confronted with either weak or strong state's evidence. Results indicate that all defendants preferred plea bargaining procedures which included the defendant. Undergraduates preferred procedures which involved a mediator, but inmates were neutral toward this modification. Undergraduates preferred a state-paid mediator, while inmates preferred a community volunteer. Several interactions qualifying these effects are discussed in the paper.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , 1981 , pp. 267 - 291
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 The Law and Society Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I would like to thank Bill Weber, Assistant Director of the Alachua County (Florida) Adult Detention Center, the staff, and those inmates who participated in this study, for their encouragement, support, and assistance in conducting this research. I am also grateful to Cathy Bowles, Sally Winter, and Ralph Mangione for their work as experimenters. Special thanks are due to Stephen A. LaTour, who provided invaluable assistance during every stage of this study.

This research was conducted while the author was an Assistant Professor of Psychology and Criminal Justice at the University of Florida. Portions of the study were presented at the 1979 American Psychological Association Convention in New York. Reprints may be obtained from the author at the Department of Criminal Justice, University of Illinois at Chicago Circle, Box 4348, Chicago, Illinois, 60680.

References

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (1967) Standards Relating to Pleas of Guilty. Chicago: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
APPELBAUM, Mark and Elliot, CRAMER (1974) “Some Problems in the Nonorthogonal Analysis of Variance,” 81 Psychological Bulletin 335.Google Scholar
ALSCHULER, Albert W. (1976) “The Trial Judge's Role in Plea Bargaining, Part I,” 76 Columbia Law Review 1059.Google Scholar
ARCURI, Alan (1976) “Lawyers, Judges, and Plea Bargaining: Some New Data on Inmates' Views,” 4 International Journal of Criminology and Penology 177.Google Scholar
CASPER, Jonathan D. (1972) American Criminal Justice: The Defendant's Perspective. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
CASPER, Jonathan D. (1978) Criminal Courts: The Defendant's Perspective. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
CHURCH, Thomas (1976) “Plea Bargains, Concessions and the Courts: Analysis of a Quasi-Experiment,” 10 Law & Society Review 377.Google Scholar
EISENSTEIN, James and Herbert, JACOB (1977) Felony Justice: An Organizational Analysis of Criminal Courts. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
FESTINGER, Leon (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FRENCH, John R.P. and Lester, COCH (1948) “Overcoming Resistance to Change,” 1 Human Relations 512.Google Scholar
GREGORY, W. Larry, MOWEN, John C., and Darwyn E., LINDER (1978) “Social Psychology and Plea Bargaining: Applications, Methodology and Theory,” 36 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1521.Google Scholar
HEINZ, Anne and Wayne, KERSTETTER (1979) “Pretrial Settlement Conference: Evaluation of a Reform in Plea Bargaining,” 13 Law & Society Review 349.Google Scholar
HEUMANN, Milton (1975) “A Note on Plea Bargaining and Case Pressure,” 9 Law & Society Review 515.Google Scholar
HOULDEN, Pauline, LaTOUR, Stephen, WALKER, Laurens, and John, THIBAUT (1978) “Preference for Modes of Dispute Resolution as a Function of Process and Decision Control,” 14 Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 13.Google Scholar
KERSTETTER, Wayne A. and Anne M., HEINZ (1978) “Pretrial Settlement Conference: An Evaluation.” Conference discussion paper presented at Special National Workshop on Plea Bargaining, French Lick, Indiana, 1978.Google Scholar
KURTZ, Susan and Pauline, HOULDEN, “Determinants of Procedural Preferences of Post Court-Martial Military Personnel.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Law and Society Association, San Francisco, 1979.Google Scholar
LaTOUR, Stephen (1978) “Determinants of Participant and Observer Satisfaction with Adversary and Inquisitorial Modes of Adjudication,” 36 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1531.Google Scholar
LaTOUR, Stephen (1980) “Effect Size Estimation: A Commentary on Wolf and Bassler,” Decision Sciences (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaTOUR, Stephen (1976) “Procedure: Transnational Perspectives and Preferences,” 86 Yale Law Journal 258.Google Scholar
LEAVITT, Harold J. (1951) “Some Effects of Certain Communication Patterns on Group Performance,” 46 Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 38.Google Scholar
McCALL, Robert B. and Mark I., APPELBAUM (1973) “Bias in the Analysis of Repeated-Measures Designs: Some Alternative Approaches,” 44 Child Development 401.Google Scholar
MORRIS, Norval (1974) The Future of Imprisonment. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
ROSETT, Albert and Donald R., CRESSY (1976) Justice by Consent: Plea Bargains in the American Courthouse. Philadelphia: Lippincott.Google Scholar
SHIN, H. Joo (1973) “Do Lesser Pleas Pay?: Accommodations in the Sentencing and Parole Processes,” 1 Journal of Criminal Justice 27.Google Scholar
THIBAUT, John and Laurens, WALKER (1975) Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Wiley.Google Scholar
THIBAUT, John and Laurens, WALKER (1974) “Procedural Justice as Fairness,” 26 Stanford Law Review 1271.Google Scholar
UHLMAN, Thomas and N. Darlene, WALKER (1977) “Pleas No Bargains?: Criminality, Case Disposition, and Defendant Treatment.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Political Science Association, Washington, D.C., 1977.Google Scholar
U.S. NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND GOALS (1973) Courts. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
WALKER, Laurens, LaTOUR, Stephen, LIND, Allan, and John, THIBAUT (1974) “Reactions of Participants and Observers to Modes of Adjudication,” 4 Journal of Applied Social Psychology 295.Google Scholar
WHITE, Welsh S. (1971) “A Proposal for Reform of the Plea Bargaining Process,” 119 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 349.Google Scholar