A Skeptical Approach to Guilt and Innocence in the Judicial Realm by Matthew J. Sharps, Kyle Villarama, Frankie Rios, and Jana L. Price-Sharps

Sharps et al. examine anomalies in the judicial process where decisions deviate from pure evidence and logic, influenced by psychological factors such as the just-world hypothesis, imagination, and dissociation. Through experimental studies, the article highlights how violence in crime scenarios and dissociative tendencies affect judgments, demonstrating that cognitive biases can distort attributions of guilt and innocence, often to the detriment of victims. Read this article and find accompanying references at: https://skepticalinquirer.org/2023/12/a-skeptical-approach-to-guilt-and-innocence-in-the-judicial-realm/ About the Author: Matthew J. Sharps is professor of psychology at the California State University, Fresno. He is the author of numerous papers and publications in cognitive and forensic cognitive science, including the 2022 book Processing under Pressure: Stress, Memory, and Decision-Making in Law Enforcement (3rd ed.). He has consulted on eyewitness issues in numerous criminal cases and has published several articles in SI on the implications of eyewitness principles for erroneous observations and interpretations. *** Kyle Villarama, PhD, and Frankie Rios are researchers at the Sierra Education and Research Institute, Fresno, California. *** Jana L. Price-Sharps, PhD, is a licensed psychologist who specializes in trauma treatment with forensic and first-responder populations. She is a fulltime faculty member at Walden University in the Forensic Psychology PhD program and a parttime faculty member in the Department of Psychology at the California State University, Fresno. She conducts research on interactive factors in forensic, clinical, and cognitive psychology. Subscribe to Skeptical Inquirer: https://skepticalinquirer.org/subscribe/ Skeptical Inquirer Audio Edition is a production of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and the Center for Inquiry.