Qualitative Research on Psychology and Decision-making in Courts

Session Submission Type: Complete Thematic Panel

Abstract/Description

This panel presents four qualitative studies using interview-based methods and data that examine how different psychological, social, and biological factors may bear on decisions made by judges and experts in court settings. The first study draws from interviews with a large sample of judges from the U.S. and Australia to compare how judges value honesty as a "communicative tool," as well as how they experience its limits, in sentencing considerations. The second study builds upon the first and data from the same sample to explore differences in how judges consider cultural factors, particularly for aboriginal Indigenous populations, when assessing nonverbal behavior surrounding honesty in sentencing considerations. The third study draws from 60 qualitative interviews with U.S. State court judges who elicit stories of their personal experiences and interactions with defendants to signify genuine and disingenuous remorse. Finally, the fourth study draws from interviews with a sample of biopsychosocial, neurocriminology, and neurolaw/ethics professors in the U.S., who may serve as experts in court, to explore their views on how neuroscience should be used or presented in the courtroom and in criminal justice more generally, specifically focusing on its relevance in decision-making surrounding responsibility and punishment in court.

Sub Unit

• Area XI. Methodology / 81. Advances in Qualitative Methods

Individual Presentations

• Honesty as a “Communicative Tool” in Punishment: A Comparative Study of Judges in the U.S. and Australia - Colleen Berryessa, Rutgers University; Carolina R. Caliman, Rutgers University School of Criminal Justice; Madison Baczuk, Rutgers University School of Criminal Justice; Melissa de Vel-Palumbo, Flinders University

• Honesty, Nonverbal Behavior, and Indigenous Populations: A Comparison of Australian and American Judicial Considerations - Madison Baczuk, Rutgers University School of Criminal Justice; Colleen Berryessa, Rutgers University; Carolina R. Caliman, Rutgers University School of Criminal Justice; Melissa de Vel-Palumbo, Flinders University

• The Stories We (Re)Tell: How Judges Recount Defendant Narratives to Adjudicate Their Remorse - Emily Greberman, Rutgers University School of Criminal Justice; Colleen Berryessa, Rutgers University

• The Future of Neuroscience in the Criminal Justice System: Views from Academia in the Field - Sandy S. Xie, Rutgers University School of Criminal Justice

Chair

• Colleen Berryessa, Rutgers University

Organized by a Division or external group?

Division of Qualitative Research and Division on Corrections and Sentencing