skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 220374 Find in a Library
Title: Paradoxes of Proof and Punishment: Psychological Pitfalls in Judicial Decision Making
Journal: Legal and Criminological Psychology  Volume:12  Issue:Part 2  Dated:September 2007  Pages:189-205
Author(s): Jan W. de Keijser; Peter J. van Koppen
Date Published: September 2007
Page Count: 17
Type: Report (Study/Research)
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United Kingdom
Annotation: This study examined two psychological mechanisms (conviction paradox and compensatory punishment) that might inadvertently affect judges’ decision on guilt and on punishment using an experiment with members of the Dutch criminal court judiciary.
Abstract: Empirical support was not found for the conviction paradox, nor for compensatory punishment. Further elaboration and explanation are encouraged because these results are considered surprising since both mechanisms are derived from firmly established psychological phenomena operating in many other fields of decisionmaking. The experiment raises doubts on the existence of the conviction paradox and of the compensatory punishment among Dutch judges, at least to the extent that these are not common mechanisms. Depending on the national justice system (and often also on the type of adjudicated case), decisions on the matter of guilt in criminal cases are taken either by judges or by juries. Studies demonstrate that a myriad of personality variables and social and psychological factors influence decisions on guilt. While the areas of research on decisions of guilt and on sentencing have developed largely in isolation from one another, their focus on unwarranted extra-legal consideration in criminal justice decisionmaking inextricably connects them. The weighing of evidence, on the one hand, and the magnitude of the sentence, on the other hand, ultimately cannot be but subjectively decided by the fact finder, be it jury or judge. In an experiment with Dutch judges and justices who serve in criminal courts, this study evaluated two psychological mechanisms that might inadvertently affect judges decisions on guilt and on punishment. The first, the conviction paradox, asserts that, faced with very serious offenses, a judge’s standard of proof will be lower than for less serious, but otherwise comparable offenses. The second, compensatory punishment, asserts that in cases with relatively weak evidence, judges who nevertheless render a guilty verdict will be inclined to compensate their initial doubt on the matter of guilt by meting out a less severe sentence. Tables, references
Main Term(s): Judicial decisions
Index Term(s): Decisionmaking; Evaluative research; Foreign judicial systems; Judicial discretion; Judicial review; Judicial system development; Netherlands; Sentencing factors; Sentencing trends; Sentencing/Sanctions
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.