The DOI matches its Crossref record.
In Doubt: The Psychology of the Criminal Justice Process
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“It is well established that the justice and legal systems are plagued with bias.”
From Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects (2025) · cites this paper as Simon, 2012
In the citing paper
“It impacts each and every aspect of the justice and legal systems, from the initial engagement of police officers attending the crime scene, through the forensic examination, and all the way to the final outcome of the jurors’ verdict and the judges’ sentencing.”
From Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects (2025) · cites this paper as Simon, 2012
In the citing paper
“Given the human role and subjectivity in policing, eyewitnesses’ accounts, jurors’ decision making, and judges’ sentencing, it is not surprising that bias impacts the different elements of the justice and legal systems”
From Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects (2025) · cites this paper as Simon, 2012
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Temperature and Decisions: Evidence from 207,000 Court Cases
Heyes, A., & Saberian, S. (2019) · American Economic Journal Applied Economics · doi:10.1257/app.20170223 · Cited by 199
Cognitive bias and blindness: A global survey of forensic science examiners.
Kukucka, J., Kassin, S. M., Zapf, P. A., & Dror, I. E. (2017) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.09.001 · Cited by 188
The coherence effect: Blending cold and hot cognitions.
Simon, D., Stenstrom, D. M., & Read, S. J. (2015) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspa0000029 · Cited by 162
Self-citationKukucka, J., & Kassin, S. M. (2013) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1037/lhb0000066 · Cited by 143
Deontological coherence: A framework for commonsense moral reasoning.
Holyoak, K. J., & Powell, D. (2016) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000075 · Cited by 124
Metadata
- Authors
- Simon, D.
- Corresponding author
- Simon, Dan
- ORCID
- Simon, Dan
- Venue
- Harvard University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Harvard University Press
- Published
- 2012-04-12
- 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.