El error judicial en el uso de la prisión preventivaPersonas en prisión que nunca llegan a ser condenadas

  1. Nuria Sánchez
  2. Jorge Sobral
  3. Dolores Seijo
Journal:
Revista iberoamericana de psicología y salud

ISSN: 2171-2069

Year of publication: 2017

Volume: 8

Issue: 1

Pages: 36-43

Type: Article

DOI: 10.23923/J.RIPS.2017.08.004 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Revista iberoamericana de psicología y salud

Abstract

Judicial error in preventive prison: People in prison who will never be convicted. Spanish correctional institutions admitted in 2014 more than 8000 people in pretrial detention. Some of them will be absolved after an inquiry and they will be found innocent having spent time in prison. The present study examines cases in which the State, in the interest of public safety, deprives innocent people of freedom. The ultimate purpose of this study is to analyze the possible presence of bias or judicial heuristics in decision-making. To this end, 70 sentences later compensated for wrongful detention and 136 convictions after pretrial detention have been systematically analyzed. The results showed that there were no significant differences in the age, the sex, the nationality, or the criminal records of the innocent and convicts. Nevertheless, differences in the type of crime have been observed. Serious crimes (murder or sexual assault) have been significantly more frequent in compensatory judgments, while the prisoners have been convicted of minor offenses (theft or crimes against road safety). Finally, we discuss the need to conduct research that is generalizable to a target ecology. This will allow study of wrongful convictions both in general and in the application of undue pretrial detention.

Bibliographic References

  • Arce, R., Fariña, F., y Fraga, A. (2000). Género y formación de juicios en un caso de violación [Gender and juror judgment making in a case of rape]. Psicothema, 12(4), 623-628.
  • Arce, R., Fariña, F., Novo, M., y Seijo, D. (2001). Judges’ decision-making from within. En R. Roesch, R. R. Corrado, y R. J. Dempster (Eds.), Psychology in the courts: International advances in knowledge (pp. 195-206). New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Arce, R., Fariña, F., y Seijo, D. (2005) Razonamientos judiciales en procesos de separación: Análisis cognitivo y de contenido de las motivaciones [Judicial reasoning in parental separation and divorce proceedings: Content and cognitive analysis of judicial reasoning]. Psicothema, 17(1), 57-63.
  • Arce, R., Tortosa, F., y Alfaro, E. (2003). Veredictos y análisis del contenido de las deliberaciones de los Tribunales de Jueces y Jurados en el contexto jurídico español [Veredict and deliberation content analysis of judges and juries in the Spanish legal context. A contrastive approach]. Psicothema, 15(1), 127-135.
  • Chen, X., y Zhong, H. (2013). Delinquency and crime among immigrant youth—An integrative review of theoretical explanations. Laws, 2(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/laws2030210
  • De la Torre, F. J. (2000). Ética y deontología jurídica. Madrid: Dykinson.
  • Devine, D. J., y Caughlin, D. E. (2014). Do they matter? A meta-analytic investigation of individual characteristics and guilt judgments. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 109-134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/law0000006
  • Ericson, M., y Vinson, T. (2010). Young people on remand in Victoria: Balancing individual and community interests. Richmond, Australia: Jesuit Social Services. Recuperado de http://jss.org.au/ wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Young_people_in_ remand_in_Victoria_-_Balancing_individual_and_ community_interests.pdf
  • Fariña, F., Arce, R., y Novo, M. (2002). Heurístico de anclaje en las decisiones judiciales [Anchorage in judicial decision making]. Psicothema, 14(1), 39-46.
  • Gould, J. B., y Leo, R. A. (2010). One hundred years later: Wrongful convictions after a century of research. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 100, 825-868.
  • Gross, S. R., Jacoby, K., Matheson, D. J., Montgomery, N., y Patil, S. (2005). Exonerations in the United States 1989 through 2003. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 95, 523-560.
  • Helm, R. K., Ceci, S. J., y Burd, K. A. (2016). Unpacking insanity defence standards: An experimental study of rationality and control tests in criminal law. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 8(2), 63-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpal.2016.02.004
  • Holland, S., y Persson, P. (2011). Intellectual disability in the Victorian prison system: characteristics of prisoners with an intellectual disability released from prison in 2003–2006. Psychology, Crime & Law, 17, 25-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10683160903392285
  • Innocence Project. (2007). 200 exonerated. Too many wrongfully convicted. Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University.
  • Instituto Nacional de Estadística. (2015, Abril). Avance de la estadística del padrón continuo a 1 de enero de 2015. Datos provisionales. Recuperado de: http://www.ine.es/prensa/np904.pdf
  • López, D. C., Rosas, M. V., Torres, L., y Vico, J. M. (1996). La prisión preventiva. Boletín Criminológico, 17, 1-4.
  • Ministerio del Interior. (2013). Anuario estadístico del Ministerio del Interior (2012). Ministerio del Interior. Recuperado de http://www.interior.gob. es/documents/642317/1204854/Anuario_ estadistico_2012_okkk.pdf/00ee01c7-3122-496aa023-22829653e6c0
  • Ministerio del Interior. (2014). Anuario estadístico del Ministerio del Interior (2013). Ministerio del Interior. Recuperado de http://www.interior.gob.es/documents/642317/1204854/Anuario_Estadistico_2013.pdf/b7606306-4713-4909-a6e4-0f62daf29b5c
  • Ministerio del Interior. (2015). Anuario estadístico del Ministerio del Interior (2014). Ministerio del Interior. Recuperado de http://www.interior. gob.es/documents/642317/1204854/AnuarioEstadistico-2014.pdf/4c7f4a33-0b68-49ec-9abddf470992f43b
  • Mitchell, T. L., Haw, R. M., Pfeifer, J. E., y Meissner, C. A. (2005). Racial bias in mock juror decision-making: A meta-analytic review of defendant treatment. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 621-637. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-8122-9
  • Pliego, J. A. H. (2013). Programa de derecho procesal penal. México: Porrúa.
  • Raghunathan, A. (2012). Nothing else but mad: The hidden costs of preventive detention. Georgetown Law Journal, 100, 967-995.
  • Schönteich, M. (2014). Presumption of guilt: The global overuse of pretrial detention. New York, NY: Open Society Justive Iniciative.
  • Sobral, J., y Prieto, A. (1994). Psicología y ley: Un examen de las decisiones judiciales. Madrid: Eudema.
  • Sommers, S. R. (2007). Race and the decision making of juries. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12, 171-187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/135532507X189687
  • Van Kalmthout, A. M., Knapen, M. M., y Morgenstern, C. (2009). Pre-trial detention in the European Union: An analysis of minimum standards in pre-trial detention and the grounds for regular review in the member states of the EU. Nijmegen, Holanda: Wolf Legal Publishers.
  • Vilariño, M., Fariña, F., y Arce, R. (2009). Discriminating real victims from feigners of psychological injury in gender violence: Validating a protocol for forensic settings. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 1(2), 221-243.
  • Waterhouse, G. F., Reynolds, A., y Egan, V. (2016). Myths and legends: The reality of rape offences reported to a UK police force. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 8(1), 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpal.2015.04.001
Data source: Dialnet