Krijgen leken die zelf actief aan een bewezenverklaring werken meer begrip voor het oordeel van de strafrechter?
Abstract
Laymen sometimes are rather unsatisfied with criminal judges’ decisions on proof. It is hypothesized that it would increase their understanding for such outcomes when they are actively involved themselves in the process of evaluating evidence. We test this hypothesis by means of a vignette study with cases where it is not crystal clear whether the accused is guilty. We show that people who ask for new evidence and evaluating it indeed change the amount of understanding for a judge’s decision that differs from their own. It is discussed what these results imply for the judiciary.