This study regards the sentences from the judge as a decision-making to discuss whether there is any difference in the integration models of sentencing factors and seriousness among the roles in the court. The research adopts the experimental methods of Information Integration Theory (IIT), and divides the subjects into five roles: judges, prosecutors, lawyers, inmates and the general public. The subjects were drawn from Kaohsiung, Tainan and Pingtung areas in Taiwan and tested in the cases of “traffic accidents” and “waste disposal”. Through the experiments, the study acquired the integration modes of “the damage from crimes” and “the attitudes after committing crimes” in the measurement of punishment.
Here are the research findings:
1. Individual subject from the five roles mostly uses “equal weight averaging rule” to combine the two factors of “the damages from crimes” and “the attitudes after committing crimes.”
2. The types of case have significant influence over sentences. The waste disposal cases are more serious than the traffic cases.
3. There is no significant difference in penalty measurement in traffic accident cases among the five roles. However, there are significant variations in waste disposal cases, especially between the general public and the other roles.
4. Through a decade after the justice reform, there have been slight differences in cognitive models of sentences.
英文關鍵字
Judicial Reform, Sentencing, Information Integration Theory, IIT
