These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

185 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31928034)

  • 1. Impact of risk assessment on judges' fairness in sentencing relatively poor defendants.
    Skeem J; Scurich N; Monahan J
    Law Hum Behav; 2020 Feb; 44(1):51-59. PubMed ID: 31928034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Do moral intuitions influence judges' sentencing decisions? A multilevel study of criminal court sentencing in Pennsylvania.
    Silver E; Ulmer JT; Silver JR
    Soc Sci Res; 2023 Sep; 115():102927. PubMed ID: 37858364
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Jurors' and Judges' Evaluation of Defendants with Autism and the Impact on Sentencing: A Systematic Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) Review of Autism Spectrum Disorder in the Courtroom.
    Allely CS; Cooper P
    J Law Med; 2017 Nov; 25(1):105-123. PubMed ID: 29978627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The impact of developmental language disorder in a defendant's description on mock jurors' perceptions and judgements.
    Hobson HM; Woodley J; Gamblen S; Brackely J; O'Neill F; Miles D; Westwood C
    Int J Lang Commun Disord; 2023 Jan; 58(1):189-205. PubMed ID: 36087284
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. From discretion to disagreement: explaining disparities in judges' pretrial decisions.
    Dhami MK
    Behav Sci Law; 2005; 23(3):367-86. PubMed ID: 15549716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The effects of gender, family status, and race on sentencing decisions.
    Freiburger TL
    Behav Sci Law; 2010; 28(3):378-95. PubMed ID: 19862840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Algorithmic risk assessments and the double-edged sword of youth.
    Stevenson MT; Slobogin C
    Behav Sci Law; 2018 Sep; 36(5):638-656. PubMed ID: 30451322
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. From whose perspective? Differences between actors and observers in determining the voluntariness of guilty pleas.
    Fessinger MB; Kovera MB
    Law Hum Behav; 2022 Oct; 46(5):353-371. PubMed ID: 36227320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Bio-behavioral scientific evidence alters judges' sentencing decision-making: A quantitative analysis.
    Thomaidou MA; Berryessa CM
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2024 Jul; 95():102007. PubMed ID: 38991330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The trial tax and the intersection of race/ethnicity, gender, and age in criminal court sentencing.
    Lehmann PS
    Law Hum Behav; 2023 Feb; 47(1):201-216. PubMed ID: 36931858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Crime and punishment in Saudi Arabia: Lashing, imprisonment, and other unusual punishments.
    Boateng FD; Pryce DK; Alotaibi HA
    Child Abuse Negl; 2023 Jan; 135():105948. PubMed ID: 36395699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The relationship between victim impact statements and judicial decision making: An archival analysis of sentencing outcomes.
    Dufour GK; Ternes M; Stinson V
    Law Hum Behav; 2023 Aug; 47(4):484-498. PubMed ID: 37347897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Risk and resources: A qualitative perspective on low-level sentencing in Virginia.
    Metz A; Monahan J; Garrett B; Siebert L
    J Community Psychol; 2019 Jul; 47(6):1476-1492. PubMed ID: 31090080
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Judicial gatekeeping on scientific validity with risk assessment tools.
    Hamilton M
    Behav Sci Law; 2020 May; 38(3):226-245. PubMed ID: 32314380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Older men and older women in the arms of criminal law: offending patterns and sentencing outcomes.
    Steffensmeier D; Motivans M
    J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci; 2000 May; 55(3):S141-51. PubMed ID: 11833982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Risk Assessment in Criminal Sentencing.
    Monahan J; Skeem JL
    Annu Rev Clin Psychol; 2016; 12():489-513. PubMed ID: 26666966
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Transferring juvenile defendants from adult to juvenile court: how Maryland forensic evaluators and judges reach their decisions.
    Means RF; Heller LD; Janofsky JS
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2012; 40(3):333-40. PubMed ID: 22960915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Mock Juror Perceptions of Credibility and Culpability in an Autistic Defendant.
    Maras K; Marshall I; Sands C
    J Autism Dev Disord; 2019 Mar; 49(3):996-1010. PubMed ID: 30382444
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Outcomes of civil protective orders: results from one state.
    Diviney CL; Parekh A; Olson LM
    J Interpers Violence; 2009 Jul; 24(7):1209-21. PubMed ID: 18701748
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The eye of the beholder: Increased likelihood of prison sentences for people perceived to have Hispanic ethnicity.
    Girvan EJ; Marek H
    Law Hum Behav; 2023 Feb; 47(1):182-200. PubMed ID: 36931857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.