SAGE Journal Articles
Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.
O’Donnell, P. C., & Lurigio, A. J. (2008). Psychosocial predictors of clinicians’ recommendations and judges’ lacement orders in a juvenile court. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1429-1448.
Research designed to examine the relationship between the information provided through comprehensive forensic assessments and clinical recommendations and judges’ sentencing decisions.
Abstract
A large proportion of youthful offenders who enter the juvenile justice system have psychiatric disorders and psychosocial risk factors that perpetuate delinquency, and addressing these issues has been a growing concern of juvenile courts nationwide. This study examines the relationship between the clinical information provided through comprehensive forensic assessments and clinicians’ recommendations for placement (community setting vs. secure facility) and judges’ sentencing decisions. The sample included 248 youth, ranging from 11 to 17 years old, who were adjudicated in the Cook County (Chicago) Juvenile Court. A reliable and valid approach for coding psychosocial variables is also presented as a prototype for future research. Consistent with previous studies, results show that judges are inclined to adopt clinical recommendations and that the material provided by comprehensive clinical evaluations could diminish the effects of offense and delinquency-based factors on dispositions.
***
Turtle, J., & Want, S. C. (2008). Logic and research versus intuition and past practices as guides to gathering and evaluating eyewitness evidence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1241-1256.
A concise and readable summary of contemporary psychological research on eyewitness issues, including memory, cognition, and decision-making.
Abstract
Psychologists have conducted extensive research and devoted substantial thought to the memory, cognition, decision-making, logic, and human interaction components of eyewitness evidence. It is fortunate that much of that work has been formally recognized by law enforcement and the legal community and used as the basis for procedure and policy changes with regard to how eyewitness evidence is collected and evaluated. The authors discuss reasons that some segments of law enforcement, the legal community, and the public resist these research findings (e.g., by seeing psychology’s role as a way to discredit eyewitness evidence or being committed to established procedures that have no empirical support). The authors also address gaps between these common misconceptions and what the psychology research perspective has to offer, in an effort to gain even more support for research- and logic-based recommendations concerning eyewitness evidence.