Evidence-based evaluations of criminal evidence—the role of evaluation structures for guilt determinations

Abstract In legal practice and research, claims are sometimes made that one specific way of evaluating criminal evidence is better than others, for example, preventing bias or even miscarriages of justice. These claims are often made without any scientific basis to support them. This research empirically evaluates and compares the potential of four different evaluation types: (i) Unstructured, (ii) Structured, (iii) Step-by-step, and (iv) Loopy in reducing conviction proneness following a pre-trial detention decision. Three scenario-based experiments were conducted with Swedish lay judges (N = 104), law students (N = 38), and a general crowd (N = 63). Overall, the results suggest that for lay judges and law students, structured evaluations of evidence reduced conviction-proneness, whereas this was not the case for the general crowd.