Plea Decisions Research Articles

The Psychology of Guilty Plea Decisions

The Psychology of Guilty Plea Decisions

Whose fault? Defendant perceptions of their own blameworthiness and guilty plea decisions

ABSTRACT With the present paper, we seek to understand how defendants form of perceptions blameworthiness and to assess how these perceptions affect willingness to accept a plea offer. With an online vignette survey (N = 659), we randomized 1) guilt and 2) riskiness of victim behavior in a vehicular manslaughter case. We also asked respondents to rate the blameworthiness of themselves and their victims. First, results indicate that guilty respondents were more likely to accept a plea than those who were innocent. Second, those in the low-risk victim behavior condition viewed themselves as more blameworthy. Third, people who view themselves as more blameworthy, or their victims as less blameworthy, are more likely to take a plea offer. Lastly, the effects of guilt, victim behavior, and perceptions of victim blameworthiness are also at least partially mediated by perceptions of self-blame. Overall, victim behavior was a key predictor of self-blameworthiness, which was then a critical predictor of WTAP. Results also suggest that respondents viewed blame as a zero-sum game and made decisions about whether to accept a plea based on whether they think they were at fault in the situation.

What advice do parents give their children about plea bargains? Understanding the role of parent race, attorney race, and attorney recommendations

This study examined parent acquiescence to attorney recommendations in plea bargain decisions, and the effect of racial similarity between an attorney and their juvenile client’s parent. Scholarship indicates that youth are vulnerable to the influence of authority figures in plea-bargaining, leading to a reliance on parental and attorney input for plea decisions. Parents read a vignette with attorney’s race manipulated, imagining they are participating in the plea-bargaining process and the attorney is giving them recommendations regarding how to plea. Results show White parents were more likely to take a plea and had more trust in the attorneys. Black attorneys were found to be most trustworthy, especially for White parents. Parent race impacted plea advice acquiescence more than attorney/parent racial similarity.

Understanding Plea Bargaining in a New Progressive DA’s Office: How Line Prosecutors Understand and Implement Progressive Goals Through Plea Decisions

Plea deals resolve the vast majority of prosecuted criminal cases in the U.S. legal system. Prosecutors hold disproportionate power in plea bargaining and have been blamed for driving punitiveness and racial disparities. Progressive prosecutors aim to reverse these trends, but little is known about how they will alter plea practices. We conducted qualitative interviews with all the assistant district attorneys (ADAs, N = 19) in a mid-sized office with a newly elected progressive DA. Interviews discussed how ADAs implemented office policies and progressive goals in plea bargaining. Prosecutors described working to implement five main progressive goals in their plea decisions: (a) dismissing low-level drug possession charges; (b) avoiding over-penalization, particularly for “victimless” crimes; (c) declining to prosecute weak cases; (d) encouraging open communication with defense; and (e) promoting racial equity. Prosecutors’ descriptions of how these goals guided case decisions illuminate how progressive prosecution may affect the criminal justice system through plea bargaining.

Guilty plea hearings in juvenile and criminal court.

In guilty plea hearings, judges must determine whether defendants' plea decisions were made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Little is known, however, about how plea hearings unfold, especially in juvenile court, where hearings are generally closed to the public. In this study, we had the unique opportunity to systematically observe plea hearings in juvenile and criminal court. We predicted that plea hearings would be brief and that defendant participation, especially among juveniles, would be minimal. We also explored how often judges addressed the plea validity components of knowingness, intelligence, and voluntariness and whether addressing these components differed by the type of court (juvenile, criminal), pretrial custody status, and pled-to charge severity. Trained coders in California (n = 104, juvenile court) and Virginia (n = 140, juvenile court; n = 593, criminal court) systematically observed more than 800 guilty plea hearings. Coders reliably documented hearing length, whether the defendant was in pretrial custody, whether the evidence was reviewed, details on defendant participation, and judicial attention to plea validity. On average, juvenile plea hearings lasted about 7 min and criminal plea hearings lasted 13 min. Prosecutors rarely reviewed evidence against the defendants in the juvenile courts, and in one juvenile court, judges paid virtually no attention to plea validity. In the other two courts, certain waived rights (e.g., to trial, to silence) were reviewed consistently. Depending on the court, hearing length and plea validity elements addressed varied by defendants' prehearing custody status and the pled-to charge severity. These findings provide novel insight into how components necessary for plea admissibility-knowingness, voluntariness, and intelligence-are discussed with defendants and, in doing so, raise concerns about the degree to which plea validity is actively assessed in plea hearings. Plea hearings are formal, minutes-long events in which defendant engagement is low. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Cognition and incentives in plea decisions: Categorical differences in outcomes as the tipping point for innocent defendants.

Cognition and incentives in plea decisions: Categorical differences in outcomes as the tipping point for innocent defendants.

Innocence in the shadow of COVID-19: Plea decision making during a pandemic.

Over 95% of criminal convictions in the United States are the result of guilty pleas. Consequently, it is critical that we ensure the process of pleading guilty is as free of coercion as possible. Yet, research has indicated that incarcerating defendants to await trial could have an undue influence on their decision to plead guilty. The current research employed a novel computer simulation to examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on plea decision making among the innocent and the guilty when faced with potential pretrial detention. While presenting COVID-related information to participants increased both true and false guilty pleas, further analyses indicated that concerns about COVID-19 weighed more heavily on the innocent than the guilty. These findings illustrate the negative impact a pandemic could have in combination with a system of pleas that often allows prosecutors to provide defendants with just one guaranteed respite from jail-a guilty plea. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Supplemental Material for Cognition and Incentives in Plea Decisions: Categorical Differences in Outcomes as the Tipping Point for Innocent Defendants

Supplemental Material for Cognition and Incentives in Plea Decisions: Categorical Differences in Outcomes as the Tipping Point for Innocent Defendants

Guilty pleas in children: legitimacy, vulnerability, and the need for increased protection

AbstractThis article assesses the extent to which current guilty plea procedure is consistent with legitimations of criminal convictions, with a focus on decision making in child defendants. I argue that in the context of plea decisions in children, the criminal justice system must ensure that defendants make decisions that result in accurate convictions that are reached in a fair way that respects rights. The current system does not do this due to an almost exclusive focus on autonomy. This focus is likely to be leading to illegitimate convictions, most importantly children pleading guilty when innocent. Drawing on psychological theory, I develop a model of guilty plea decision making and draw on this model to identify relevant vulnerabilities of child defendants. Based on this analysis, I identify ways in which current procedure in England and Wales may be leading to systematic problems with the legitimacy of convictions of children, and suggest reforms to enhance such legitimacy. These reform suggestions focus on England and Wales but have implications for plea systems around the world.

Examining prosecutorial decision‐making in plea bargaining: An experimental paradigm in a community sample

AbstractScholars estimate that 90–95% of guilty pleas are the result of plea bargaining and there is a growing body of empirical research on plea bargain decision‐making. We use a new experimental paradigm that mimics prosecutors’ actual decision‐making processes to examine factors that influence plea bargaining decisions. Participants received a casefile detailing a theft from an electronics store. This casefile—fabricated to reflect one a prosecutor would actually receive—included a police report, witness statements, and a criminal history report. In these materials, we manipulated the defendant's motive, the severity of the crime, and the defendant's criminal history and measured the impact of these factors on participants’ decisions to offer a plea and the severity of the plea offers—operationalized as sentence offer length. The results indicated that the vast majority of the participants initially decided to offer a plea. The severity of the crime (operationalized as value of the theft) and defendant's criminal history impacted plea decisions, such that higher severity and a criminal history of theft increased the length of the sentence offer. Contrary to our hypothesis, the defendant's motive had no effect on plea offers. These results parallel current sentencing practices codified in law. Policy implications are discussed.

Supplemental Material for Innocence in the Shadow of COVID-19: Plea Decision Making During a Pandemic

Supplemental Material for Innocence in the Shadow of COVID-19: Plea Decision Making During a Pandemic

Unintelligent Decision-Making?

The disclosure of evidence, primarily from the prosecutor to the defense (i.e., discovery) is key to a fair and just legal system. Restrictive discovery policies have been criticized for contributing to innocent defendants pleading guilty (Alkon, 2014) and to uninformed plea decisions (Friedman, 1971). Open-file policies, in which prosecutors broadly share evidence with the defense, are a leading reform to address these issues. This study investigated the impact of guilt and access to discovery information (with or without exculpatory evidence) on plea decisions. We hypothesized that, in comparison to their counterparts, participants who had access to all of the evidence (i.e., those in open-file condition) and participants who were innocent would rate the evidence against them as significantly weaker, their probabilities of conviction at trial as significantly lower, and would be less likely to take the plea deal. We also hypothesized that ratings of evidence strength and probability of conviction would mediate expected relations between the plea decision and conditions. One-hundred participant-defendants were randomly assigned to open- vs. closed-file and guilt vs. innocence conditions, and asked to review case materials that either contained full or partial discovery. They were then asked to rate the strength of the evidence against them, their probability of conviction, and to accept or reject a plea offer in a hypothetical case. Defendant guilt and access to discovery information impacted perceived evidence strength, which subsequently impacted plea decision-making. Our findings indicate that access to discovery information indirectly impacted defendants’ plea decisions.

Diverging from the shadows: explaining individual deviation from plea bargaining in the “shadow of the trial”

The “shadow of the trial” (SOT) theory posits that plea decisions result from mathematical predictions of probability of conviction (POC) at trial and potential trial sentence (TS). Tests of the SOT model often find support in the aggregate, but not at the individual level. This study examines the factors that account for adherence to, or deviation from, the SOT model, such as mathematical competence, a factor not previously examined in tests of the SOT model. Participants were randomly assigned to one of nine conditions corresponding to manipulations of probability of conviction (10%, 50%, 90%) and potential trial sentence (5, 15, 25 months). After reading a case description, participants were asked whether they would accept a plea offer and how much time in jail they would be willing to spend; a subset of participants was offered a counter plea offer. Participants then answered questions assessing numeracy and about their legal opinions and personal characteristics. Results showed that probability of conviction, but not trial sentence, influenced shadow model adherence. Participants assigned to 50% and 90% POC conditions were significantly less likely to deviate from the SOT model than participants assigned to 10% conditions. This effect did not interact with TS. Additionally, the odds of fitting the SOT model increased significantly as participants’ numeracy scores increased. Our results raise questions about the validity of the SOT model at low POCs and challenge its assumption that defendants are capable of conducting the mathematical calculations required to fit the model.

Examining the effect of case and trial factors on defense attorneys’ plea decision-making

ABSTRACT Defense attorneys are attuned to the defendant’s likelihood of conviction at trial, based on the strength of the evidence, in forming their plea decisions. A higher threshold for conviction (i.e. unanimous jury verdict rule versus majority rule), could affect defense attorneys’ willingness to take cases to trial. In this study, we examined defense attorney decision-making by presenting defense attorneys with a hypothetical case summary in which the jury verdict rule was unanimous versus majority rule (experiment one, N = 82), and the strength of the evidence was weak versus strong (experiment two, N = 81). In experiment one, there was no direct or indirect effect of jury verdict rule on plea decision-making. Rather, defense attorney estimates of the defendant’s likelihood of conviction predicted plea decisions; defense attorneys who perceived a higher likelihood of conviction were more likely to recommend plea bargaining than those who perceived a lower likelihood of conviction. In experiment two, strength of evidence influenced a number of defense attorney decisions. Defense attorneys in strong evidence conditions were more likely to recommend plea bargaining, rated the defendant’s likelihood of conviction higher, and their probability of winning at trial lower than those in weak evidence conditions.

Satisfaction, Legitimacy, and Guilty Pleas: How Perceptions and Attorneys Affect Defendant Decision-Making

Though almost all convictions are the result of guilty pleas, little research has examined influences on defendant plea decisions. First, we explore how attorney satisfaction and court legitimacy affect defendant choices. Using an experimental approach, we then assess the impact of a defense attorney’s evaluation of a plea offer on the defendant’s willingness to accept a plea, and whether this is moderated by defendants’ individual views. Findings demonstrate that higher attorney satisfaction and higher court legitimacy are associated with higher willingness to accept a plea. Defendant decision-making is also impacted by their attorney’s evaluation of the plea and this influence is moderated by the defendant’s satisfaction with their representation. In line with previous research, we also find differences across guilt indicating that guilty and innocent defendants may have different decision-making processes. Results suggest that guilty plea research should continue to evolve with increased attention to the defendant and their counsel.

Pleading Guilty: A Voluntary or Coerced Decision?

AbstractThe empirical literature on plea decisions shows that rational motives and coercion may coexist, but there is uncertainty with regard to whether accused feel that their decision is voluntary or made under considerable pressure. However, in most jurisdictions, the legitimacy of the plea bargaining process rests on the Court’s obligation to ensure that the guilty plea is entered voluntarily and knowingly. This study proposes to understand how the accused interpret the rational or coercive elements of their decision-making process and the extent to which their decision to plead guilty is voluntary. Based on semi-structured interviews with twenty convicted individuals, we describe the different decision-making processes, from free and informed decisions to forced decisions to plead guilty while innocent.

Plea decision-making: the influence of attorney expertise, trustworthiness, and recommendation

ABSTRACT Attorney recommendations influence defendant plea decisions; and the degree of influence likely rests on the perceived trustworthiness and level of expertise of the attorney (factors of source credibility). We explored attorney source credibility factors and how these characteristics influence defendants’ plea decision-making. MTurk participants read a hypothetical plea scenario and were asked to imagine themselves as the defendant in a DWI/DUI case making a plea decision; in the scenario, we manipulated the defense attorney’s level of trustworthiness, expertise, and plea recommendation. There was a significant interaction between attorney recommendation and trustworthiness on defendants’ plea decisions; participants who were advised to accept the guilty plea were more likely to plead guilty when the attorney was high in trustworthiness compared to low in trustworthiness. Attorney trustworthiness did not affect plea decisions for defendants advised to reject the guilty plea. Importantly, attorney trustworthiness affected defendants’ decision to follow the attorney’s recommendation and ultimate plea decision (regardless of expertise), and attorney expertise affected defendants’ confidence in their decision (regardless of trustworthiness). Results suggest individual-level characteristics of defense attorneys affect the influence of the attorney and their recommendation, and ultimately defendants’ plea decision-making.

False Confessions: An Experimental Study of the Innocence Problem

The innocence problem, which occurs when an innocent person is falsely accused or convicted of a crime, is impossible to study with empirical data, because “true” innocence and guilt are unobservable in the “real world.” In this study, we replicate the criminal justice system in the laboratory with real salient crimes and subjects acting in the roles of defendants, prosecutors, and jurors in order to study the innocence problem. In a controlled environment, we identify individuals who are falsely or accurately accused of a crime and track them through the plea-bargaining system. This allows us to explore how being falsely accused of a crime affects plea bargaining decisions. We find evidence for a substantial innocence problem, reflected by a high willingness of truly innocent defendants to accept plea bargains. However, they do so at a lower rate than the truly guilty suggesting preferences for truth telling, an irrelevant factor in most economic theory. We also find evidence that individual preferences over uncertainty influence plea decisions, as predicted by economic theory. Overall, we find that loss aversion has a significant positive influence on plea decisions and that the reduced propensity of the truly innocent to accept plea bargains is driven by an interaction between their preferences to avoid lying and their preferences over uncertainty.

Disentangling the effects of plea discount and potential trial sentence on decisions to plead guilty

BackgroundMost criminal convictions are a result of guilty pleas. Concerns have been raised that large differentials between plea and potential trial sentences can be coercive to some defendants, especially when the threat of potential trial sentence is very large. The limited research, to date, suggests that the likelihood of pleading guilty goes up with increasing size of potential trial sentence. However, existing studies have failed to separate the effects of trial sentence and plea discount; as a result, in almost all studies, large potential trial sentences are paired with large discounts and small trial sentences with small discounts, making it difficult to know how the threat of trial sentence actually affects defendant decisions.MethodIn this study, we examined the effects of guilt, magnitude of potential trial sentence (5 years and 25 years), and size of plea discount (20%, 50%, and 75%) in a fully crossed, between‐subjects design, with acceptance of plea offer as the dependent variable.ResultsWe found that potential trial sentence and plea discount had independent and opposite effects on plea decisions, with discount carrying the most weight. Specifically, participants accepted more plea offers in higher relative to lower discount conditions and when potential trial sentence was 5 years rather than 25 years. The pattern of effects was similar for participants in guilty and innocent conditions.ImplicationsOur results run somewhat counter to conventional wisdom on how discount and potential trial sentence affect plea decisions and suggest that, given similar discounts, the likelihood for pleading guilty may be higher for defendants facing less serious charges that carry less severe sentences. We discuss the policy and research implications of these data.

Race, Culpability, and Defendant Plea-Bargaining Decisions: An Experimental Simulation

ABSTRACTGuilty pleas account for the vast majority of criminal convictions, yet experimental research on this topic is surprisingly uncommon; furthermore, race is seldom examined in the existing body of experimental studies. The current study utilized a 2 (Participant Race: White, non-White) X 2 (Defendant Culpability: Guilty, Innocent) between-subjects factorial design to investigate mock-defendant plea decisions using a vignette paradigm; culpability was randomly assigned. A significant main effect for culpability was found, such that guilty participants were more likely to accept the plea; however, 32.6% of innocent participants indicated that they would plead guilty to the crime in order to receive a guaranteed lesser sentence. The impact of culpability on plea decision making was partially mediated by individual beliefs about the case (e.g., strength of the case against them, likelihood of conviction at trial), which is especially interesting because this information was held constant across all conditions. There was no main effect for participant race in plea decisions (and no significant race by culpability interaction), although some racial differences in attitudes toward the criminal justice system were found. Possible explanations for these findings and implications for future research are explored.