Justice at Risk? The Influence of Recidivism Risk Information on Evaluation of Evidence and Determination of Guilt

In contrast to jurisdictions with bifurcated criminal justice proceedings, in Belgium and the Netherlands a defendant's assessed risk of recidivism is known to triers of fact prior to making decisions about guilt. In three experiments conducted in those two countries, we investigated whether information about recidivism risk would bias the fact finders' evaluations of evidence and the defendant's credibility, and their final decision on guilt. Specifically, student participants (Belgian sample: <i>N</i> = 368; Dutch sample: <i>N</i> = 236) and jury-eligible Belgian participants (<i>N</i> = 75) read a vignette about an aggravated assault with circumstantial evidence and a defendant who denied committing the alleged offense. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three vignettes: one without risk information, one describing a low risk of recidivism, and one describing a high risk of recidivism. We found no direct or indirect effect of risk on the proportion of guilty verdicts or on the evaluation of the evidence. We did find that participants who read that the defendant was low risk evaluated the innocence claim as being more credible, compared to those who were given high-risk information or no risk information. Moreover, higher credibility ratings were associated with a higher likelihood of a not-guilty verdict. While preliminary, these findings suggest recidivism risk information may influence fact finding, and merit replication, especially with judges.