Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 153Deception detection and forensic psychologyLegal processes and jurisprudenceJury Decision Making Processes

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

In Doubt: The Psychology of the Criminal Justice Process

Simon, Dan·2012·Harvard University Press eBooks
DOI 10.4159/harvard.9780674065116
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The criminal justice process is unavoidably human. Police detectives, witnesses, suspects, and victims shape the course of investigations, while prosecutors, defense attorneys, jurors, and judges affect the outcome of adjudication. In this sweeping review of psychological research, Dan Simon shows how flawed investigations can produce erroneous evidence and why well-meaning juries send innocent people to prison and set the guilty free. The investigator’s task is genuinely difficult and prone to bias. This often leads investigators to draw faulty conclusions, assess suspects’ truthfulness incorrectly, and conduct coercive interrogations that can lead to false confessions. Eyewitnesses’ identification of perpetrators and detailed recollections of criminal events rely on cognitive processes that are often mistaken and can easily be skewed by the investigative procedures used. In the courtroom, jurors and judges are ill-equipped to assess the accuracy of testimony, especially in the face of the heavy-handed rhetoric and strong emotions that crimes arouse. Simon offers an array of feasible ways to improve the accuracy of criminal investigations and trials. While the limitations of human cognition will always be an obstacle, these reforms can enhance the criminal justice system’s ability to decide correctly whom to release and whom to punish.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4159/harvard.9780674065116

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Items 101–153 of 153

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Simon, D.
Corresponding author
Simon, Dan
ORCID
Simon, Dan
Venue
Harvard University Press eBooks
Publisher
Harvard University Press
Published
2012-04-12
DOI
10.4159/harvard.9780674065116
OpenAlex
W4213299012
Cited by
109
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
3.47
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Harvard University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
  • Social Sciences › Law › Jury Decision Making Processes
Keywords
criminal justice, wrongful convictions, researcher bias, police detectives, eyewitness identification, false confessions, coercive interrogation, jury decision-making, judicial decision-making, cognitive errors, forensic psychology, criminal trials, criminal investigation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.