IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jcjust/v102y2026ics0047235225002247.html

Honesty as a “communicative tool” in sentencing: A study of judges in the U.S. and Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Berryessa, Colleen M.
  • de Vel-Palumbo, Melissa
  • Caliman, Carolina R.
  • Baczuk, Madison

Abstract

This study, drawing from interviews with trial court judges in the U.S. and Australia (N = 47), builds a theoretical qualitative model that illustrates the conceptualization, significance, and influence of a defendant's honesty as a “communicative tool” in punishment and sentencing practices for judges in these jurisdictions. A constant comparative analysis shows that judges from both jurisdictions generally believe that a defendant's honesty acts as a communicative tool during sentencing, and this can lead them to reconfigure their sentencing practices–which they view as representing the interests of victims and the community–to prioritize mercy as well as rehabilitative and reparative ideals. Further, judges look for defendants to communicate honesty in ways that enable them to develop a complete understanding of its weight during sentencing, with U.S. judges particularly focusing on body language and nonverbal indicators. Overall, this study not only represents the first known empirical examination of a defendant's honesty within the communicative theory of punishment framework but also assesses if and how it translates across national cultures and criminal-legal systems, as well as how judges believe guidelines and legislation limit sentencing decisions involving honesty in Australia and the U.S. Implications of this work for sentencing practices are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Berryessa, Colleen M. & de Vel-Palumbo, Melissa & Caliman, Carolina R. & Baczuk, Madison, 2026. "Honesty as a “communicative tool” in sentencing: A study of judges in the U.S. and Australia," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jcjust:v:102:y:2026:i:c:s0047235225002247
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2025.102575
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235225002247
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2025.102575?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shani, Yaniv & Igou, Eric R. & Zeelenberg, Marcel, 2009. "Different ways of looking at unpleasant truths: How construal levels influence information search," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 36-44, September.
    2. Whitson, Jennifer A. & Wang, Cynthia S. & See, Ya Hui Michelle & Baker, Wayne E. & Murnighan, J. Keith, 2015. "How, when, and why recipients and observers reward good deeds and punish bad deeds," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 84-95.
    3. Jana Lasser & Segun T. Aroyehun & Fabio Carrella & Almog Simchon & David Garcia & Stephan Lewandowsky, 2023. "From alternative conceptions of honesty to alternative facts in communications by US politicians," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(12), pages 2140-2151, December.
    4. Ian K. Belton & Mandeep K. Dhami, 2024. "The role of character‐based personal mitigation in sentencing judgments," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 208-239, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Effron, Daniel A. & Raj, Medha, 2021. "Disclosing interpersonal conflicts of interest: Revealing whom we like, but not whom we dislike," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 68-85.
    2. Ling, Maoliang & Liu, Chutian & Xu, Lin & Yang, Haimi, 2024. "Carrot and stick incentive policies for climate change mitigation: A survey experiment on crowding out of public support," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).
    3. Yaniv Shani & Niels van de Ven & Marcel Zeelenberg, 2012. "Delaying information search," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(6), pages 750-760, November.
    4. Ruttan, Rachel L. & Nordgren, Loran F., 2016. "The strength to face the facts: Self-regulation defends against defensive information processing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 86-98.
    5. Polman, Evan & Ruttan, Rachel L. & Peck, Joann, 2022. "Using curiosity to incentivize the choice of “should” options," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    6. Jingyuan Yu & Emese Domahidi & Duccio Gamannossi degl’Innocenti & Fabiana Zollo, 2026. "Crisis, country, and party lines: politicians’ misinformation behavior and public engagement," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 1-19, February.
    7. Shani, Yaniv & Cepicka, Marie Christine & Shashar, Nadav, 2011. "Keeping up with the Joneses: Dolphins' search knowledge for knowledge's sake," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 418-424, June.
    8. Zhu, Luke (Lei) & Aquino, Karl & You, Huan & Yang, Chunjiang, 2021. "Identity affirmation as a response to justice failure," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 189-205.
    9. Samuel N. Kirshner & Brent B. Moritz, 2023. "For the future and from afar: Psychological distance and inventory decision‐making," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(1), pages 170-188, January.
    10. Fabio Carrella & Segun T. Aroyehun & Jana Lasser & Almog Simchon & David Garcia & Stephan Lewandowsky, 2025. "Different honesty conceptions align across US politicians' tweets and public replies," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-14, December.
    11. Segun T. Aroyehun & Almog Simchon & Fabio Carrella & Jana Lasser & Stephan Lewandowsky & David Garcia, 2025. "Computational analysis of US congressional speeches reveals a shift from evidence to intuition," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 9(6), pages 1122-1133, June.
    12. Chan Hyung Park & Markus Baer & Jackson Nickerson, 2025. "Looking at the Trees to See the Forest: Construal Level Shift in Strategic Problem Framing and Formulation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(5), pages 1962-1979, September.
    13. Jeff Galak & Rosalind M Chow, 2019. "Compensate a little, but punish a lot: Asymmetric routes to restoring justice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-27, January.
    14. Chee Wei Phang & Atreyi Kankanhalli & Bernard C. Y. Tan, 2015. "What Motivates Contributors vs. Lurkers? An Investigation of Online Feedback Forums," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 773-792, December.
    15. Dawn Holford & Ezequiel Lopez-Lopez & Angelo Fasce & Linda C. Karlsson & Stephan Lewandowsky, 2024. "Identifying the underlying psychological constructs from self-expressed anti-vaccination argumentation," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-13, December.
    16. Michael Wood & Theodore Noseworthy & Scott Colwell, 2013. "If You Can’t See the Forest for the Trees, You Might Just Cut Down the Forest: The Perils of Forced Choice on “Seemingly” Unethical Decision-Making," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 118(3), pages 515-527, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jcjust:v:102:y:2026:i:c:s0047235225002247. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jcrimjus .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.