Search

Although there are multiple statistical approaches used in understanding reentry, there is little consensus on the benefits and limitations of some of the more popular techniques as they relate to each other. Here, two common methods, lagged dependent variable modeling and hierarchical generalized linear modeling, are contrasted. To examine how particular modeling strategies may lead to different understandings of recidivism within reentry, we use data from the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI; N = 1,697) to provide an example of the two statistical approaches and discuss the benefits and limitations of each strategy. While researchers will need to make important decisions about which strategy best addresses their research question, results of our analyses show that in dealing with reentry data across more than two waves, a hierarchical generalized linear model is often the preferred approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite numerous calls for more research on alibis, there remain many unanswered questions. Three experiments tested the beliefs about and behaviors toward criminal suspects who changed or maintained their alibi statements. In Experiments 1 (N = 350) and 2 (N = 211), participants included current law enforcement officers, criminal justice and psychology undergraduate students who intended to enter law enforcement (future law enforcement officers), and those students who did not intend to do so (laypersons). Only students were used in Experiment 3 (N = 423). Alibi statements were changed (strengthened or weakened) or were maintained in all studies. Results showed that groups had more favorable beliefs about and behaviors toward those alibi statements that were maintained than those that were changed. This research suggests that any lapse in memory for one’s timeline of events could prove detrimental to the suspect. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Inconsistent alibis often are viewed negatively, but they may be due to simple mistakes and not deception. The strength of alibi evidence also matters; alibis supported by strong corroborative physical evidence are more believable than alibis with no physical evidence. The timing at which the alibi is disclosed to the prosecution also can affect alibi believability. Two hundred and seventy online participants evaluated a consistent or inconsistent alibi that had corroborative physical evidence or not, and was disclosed early or late. Collapsing across the three conditions, more participants voted guilty than not guilty, and more believable alibis were associated with more not guilty verdicts. Consistent alibis were more believable, and the defendant was viewed more positively on five character traits than when the alibi was inconsistent. There were few effects of alibi timing. In sum, consistency led to positive views of alibis and defendants., Competing Interests: Meredith Allison has declared no conflicts of interest Sandy Jung has declared no conflicts of interest Scott Culhane has declared no conflicts of interest, (© 2023 The Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law.)