Co-Offenders before the Court: The Joinder Effect in Victoria, 1861-1961

Piper, A; Vogel, L

Co-Offenders before the Court: The Joinder Effect in Victoria, 1861-1961

Piper, A

Vogel, L

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: law&history, 2018, 5 (2), pp. 111 - 136
Issue Date:: 2018

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	PiperVogelJoinder_PrePrint.docx	Accepted Manuscript Version	68.2 kB	Microsoft Word XML	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Piper, A https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9369-5862	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Vogel, L	en_US
dc.date.issued	2018	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	law&history, 2018, 5 (2), pp. 111 - 136	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	1177-3170	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/129155
dc.description.abstract	It is well established in legal and psychological research that combining multiple charges against a defendant into a single trial event has a tendency to increase the chance of conviction - this is known as the joinder effect. Legal scholars have long theorised that combining the trials of multiple defendants has a similar effect, disadvantaging co-accused by tainting them with guilt by association. However, little empirical evidence has been presented to support this. It has further been suggested that the joinder of co-accused defendants became more pronounced during the twentieth century, as judges in common law jurisdictions became increasingly reluctant to increase the courts' workload by severing trials. Drawing on a sample of prosecutions data from Victoria, this article explores the impact that being co-accused had on trial outcomes and the wider legal and sociohistorical issues surrounding such joint trials.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	law&history	en_US
dc.title	Co-Offenders before the Court: The Joinder Effect in Victoria, 1861-1961	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	2	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	5	en_US
utslib.location.activity	Australia	en_US
utslib.for	2103 Historical Studies	en_US
utslib.for	1801 Law	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences/Social and Political Sciences Program
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.consider-herdc	true	en_US
pubs.issue	2	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	5	en_US

Abstract:

It is well established in legal and psychological research that combining multiple charges against a defendant into a single trial event has a tendency to increase the chance of conviction - this is known as the joinder effect. Legal scholars have long theorised that combining the trials of multiple defendants has a similar effect, disadvantaging co-accused by tainting them with guilt by association. However, little empirical evidence has been presented to support this. It has further been suggested that the joinder of co-accused defendants became more pronounced during the twentieth century, as judges in common law jurisdictions became increasingly reluctant to increase the courts' workload by severing trials. Drawing on a sample of prosecutions data from Victoria, this article explores the impact that being co-accused had on trial outcomes and the wider legal and sociohistorical issues surrounding such joint trials.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/129155