Home
Resource
The role of evidentiary weight in judicial sentencing determinations
PDF
PDF format is widely accepted and good for printing.
Plug-in required
PDF-1(1.43 MB)
Citation & Export
View Usage Statistics
Staff View

Citation & Export
Hide

Simple citation

Nir, Esther. The role of evidentiary weight in judicial sentencing determinations. Retrieved from https://doi.org/doi:10.7282/T3XP7755

Export

Click here for information about Citation Management Tools at Rutgers.

Statistics
Hide

Description

TitleThe role of evidentiary weight in judicial sentencing determinations
NameNir, Esther (author); Griffiths, Elizabeth (chair); Miller, Jody (internal member); Brunson, Rod (internal member); Johnson, Brian (outside member); Rutgers University; Graduate School - Newark
Date Created2016
Other Date2016-05 (degree)
SubjectCriminal Justice, Evidence (Law), Sentences (Criminal procedure)
Extent1 online resource (vii, 246 p. : ill.)
DescriptionThe type and quantity of evidence in a case is a critical factor for deciding guilt, but should have little or no influence on the sentencing determinations of judges post conviction; this is because case evidence goes to guilt decisions by triers of fact, whereas sentences are imposed upon those already convicted. This dissertation examines the extralegal influence of evidentiary type and quantity on post conviction sentencing decisions using a mixed methods approach. Quantitative results demonstrate that violent felony trial cases with forensic evidence, and those cases with more varied pieces of physical evidence, result in longer custodial sentences for convicted defendants, whereas the presence of eyewitnesses fails to influence sentencing punitiveness. Qualitative interviews of 41 state court sentencing judges provide explanations for these relationships. The findings show that judges perceive cases with forensic evidence to be more objective and reliable than non-scientific evidence. While they appreciate the human quality of witness testimony, inherent credibility and reliability concerns result in decreased perceptions of evidentiary strength. Further, additional pieces of evidence corroborate other case evidence and improve perceptions of evidentiary weight. Thus, cases with more evidence and cases with forensic evidence increase judicial confidence levels in guilt. Finally, analyses utilizing a series of vignettes to evaluate sentencing rationales, as well as direct queries, reveal that judges impose longer sentences when their perceptions of evidentiary strength are highest because they are more confident in the guilt of the defendant.
NotePh.D.
NoteIncludes bibliographical references
Noteby Esther Nir
Genretheses, ETD doctoral
Persistent URLhttps://doi.org/doi:10.7282/T3XP7755
Languageeng
CollectionGraduate School - Newark Electronic Theses and Dissertations
Organization NameRutgers, The State University of New Jersey
RightsThe author owns the copyright to this work.
Version 8.5.5
Rutgers University Libraries - Copyright ©2024