Jury decision making

• Factors influencing jury decision making including characteristics of the defendant and pre- trial publicity:

  • characteristics of the defendant
  • Race
  • Attractiveness
  • A lot of this has to do with schemas
• What is a jury:

  • Juries are called to court rooms from government records at random to give verdicts at trails to find, given evidence from the prosecution and the defendant weather the defendant is guilty of a charge for example; murder. ​
  • The juries are questioned on whether they know anyone, have emotional connections to or have any views that could effect the decision they give. Despite this rigorous examination of the chosen jury members, their subconscious views and prejudices can affect the decision they give. ​
• Race:

  • Mitchell et al (05) carried out a report on a meta- analysis looking at race and jury decision making. He looked at 34 studies.
  • Carter and Mazzula (13) looks at in-group and out-group bias in jury decision making, where they find racial bias.
  • Glaser et al (15) looks at possibility of the death sentence and the effects on verdicts for black and white defendants.
• Brabury and Williams (2013):

  • The race of the juror matters.
  • Black defendants are less likely to be convicted if the jury is made of more black people than if it is made of more white people.
  • Juries should be a mix of races to make it fair.
• Mitchell et al- meta analysis:

  • Devine et al (00) – In their review, evidence from their studies is mixed, some showing racial bias. ​
  • Mitchell et al (05) – there is a small but significant effect of racial bias in decision-making but the effect is more pronounced in different situations. ​
  • Baldus et al (02) – black defendants are given much longer sentences than white defendants when there is a white victim. ​
  • However, Williams and Holcomb (01) – defendant race did not predict death rate sentence in Ohio.​
• Mitchell et al continued:

  • Sweeney and Haney (1992) – small significant effect of racial bias, showing that white ppts were more likely to give black defendants longer sentences than white defendants. ​
  • Mazzella and Feingold (94) ~ did not find racial bias when they looked at judgements of guilt or sentencing decisions focusing on race alone. ​
  • black defendants were given longer sentences for certain homicide crimes and white defendants were given longer sentences for fraud.
• Mitchell et al results:

  • Out of the 34 studies, Mitchell et al (05) found that ppts were more likely to give a guilty verdict for defendants of a race different from their own than for defendants of their own race. ​
  • Variables affecting decision making included race of the ppt, presence or absence of instructions and date of the study. These three significantly affected whether there was racial bias in decision-making or not.
• Carter and Mazzula (13):

  • Carried out a study using 210 mock jurors representing different racial groups. The study included showing them an employment case and whether the person had been discriminated against. ​
  • Found both in-group and out-group bias (backs up Mitchell et al 05)​
  • Focused on extralegal factors – factors affecting jury decision making that are not connected to the courtroom, for example race which is found to affect mock and actual juror decisions.​
  • Also interested in racial identity which focuses on someone’s ‘psychological investment’ in their race and culture.​
• Carter and Mazzula cont:

  • Through racial identity models, Carter and Mazzula have summarised that racial identity will affect juror decision making and these are views about a juror’s own racial identity and identity of other people.​
  • The race of the defendant will affect juror decision-making in this way.
• Glaser et al (15)

  • focuses on whether a case has the probability of the death sentence.
  • Gave ppts a summary of a triple murder trial that gave the possibility of death sentence or life without parole and manipulated defendant race.
  • Those that life without parole was the max sentence were not significantly more likely to convict a black defendent than white.
  • Results suggested it is the death sentence that gives the difference in juror decision making regarding racial bias which has civil rights implications
• Stereotyping: Duncan (76)

  • Stereotyping has been shown to influence the recall and interpretation of information.
  • White participants were shown a film, without sound, of two men talking intensely, and then one of the men shoved the other. When it was a black man pushing a white man, 75% of participants perceived the push as violent behaviour, but for the other way around only 17% saw it as violent behaviour.
• Mitchell et al (05) meta- analysis:

  • Looked at the effects of racial bias on juror decision- making. ​

  The results of the meta- analysis focused on in-group and out-group.​​

  Participants more likely to give a guilty verdict for defendants of a different race than their own.​

  Longer sentences were given out to defendants of a different racial group that the juror.
• Skolnick and Shaw (97) conflicting evidence:

  • Looked at the relationship between the race of jurors and the race of defendants.​
  • Found they were important in the decision making process.​
  • Found both black and white jurors were less likely to find a black defendant guilty. ​
  • Black jurors were more likely to find a white defendant guilty than a black defendant guilty.
• sex of the juror and the defendant: Thomas (10)

  • Thomas reported that female jurors were more open to persuasion to change their original verdict during deliberation than male jurors. It was rare for male jurors to change their mind about their original verdict.​
  • Therefore, it could be argued that the verdict may be bias, as the female jurors could have been persuaded to change their verdict to fit with those of the male jurors.
• Finn and Salons 1997; Stewart and Maddren (97)

  • They found that male victims were found to be more responsible than female victims for the violence enacted against them.​
  • This can be backed up by Seelau et al 2003​
  • This may be due to perceptions that a woman must be provoked to act in such a “non-traditional” way. Men are typically seen as aggressive, therefore female victims are seen as less responsible for any abuse they suffer.
• Foster Lee et al (06):

  • Found that female jurors convict more perpetrators than male jurors. ​
  • This is supported by (Home 1994) who found that female jurors are more sympathetic towards victims than males. ​
  • Additionally, this is also supported by Harris and Cook (1994) who found that female jurors tend to believe that any crime is serious, regardless of the victims gender.​
  • Therefore it could be argued that the empathy the female jurors show towards the victim may cloud their judgment, and therefore, make the verdict bias.
• What was the aim of the study by Castallow et al (1990)?

  To see if the attractiveness of a defendant affects the guilty verdict in a sexual harassment case
• How were the defendants scaled in the study?

  Defendants were scaled from 1 to 9 in attractiveness, with 1 being very attractive and 9 being very unattractive
• What was the overall procedure of the study conducted by Castallow et al (1990)?

  • Participants were shown a case
  • They were given photos of the defendant
  • Participants answered multiple questions regarding their opinion on the defendant's guilt
• What percentage of the most attractive defendants were found guilty?

  56%
• What percentage of the most unattractive defendants were found guilty?

  76%
• What conclusion can be drawn from the results of the study?

  Attractiveness influences jury decision-making, disadvantaging unattractive individuals in court
• What implications do the findings of Castallow et al (1990) have on the legal system?

  • Suggests bias based on physical appearance
  • Indicates that unattractive individuals may face disadvantages in court
  • Highlights the need for awareness of biases in jury selection and decision-making
• What was the aim of Sigall and Ostrove's lab study?

  To see whether attractiveness affected jury decision making and the relationship between attractiveness and type of crime committed
• What types of crimes did Sigall and Ostrove use in their study?

  Burglary and fraud
• How did the attractiveness of a person affect jury decisions regarding fraud and burglary?

  Attractive individuals received longer sentences for fraud and shorter sentences for burglary
• Why are attractive people associated with crimes like fraud?

  Because they use their good looks to gain trust and manipulate victims into giving them money
• Why are attractive people not typically associated with burglary?

  Because people do not think they would break in and steal something
• What were the results of Sigall and Ostrove's study regarding sentencing for attractive individuals?

  • Similar length of sentence for both crimes with unattractive photo and no photo
  • Attractive individuals received longer sentences for fraud
  • Attractive individuals received shorter sentences for burglary
• What does Sigall and Ostrove's study highlight about the role of looks in jury decision making?

  It highlights the importance of looks, indicating that good-looking people can get away with crimes more easily
• What is the implication of using looks to commit a crime according to the study?

  If someone uses their looks to commit a crime, they are less likely to get away with it
• Attractive people are thought to be more intelligent, friendly, honest and less likely to be guilty of a crime.
• Sigal ,J Braden ,J Aylward ,G (78):

  Aim:

  • To see if attractiveness of defendant, number of witnesses, and personal motivation of defendant effects jury decision making behaviour​
  • Conducted 2 experiments where undergraduates individually judged a defendant as "guilty" or "not guilty" in a fake jury setting involving a murder and attempted robbery.​
  • In Exp 1, and in Exp 2, ppts randomly assigned to 1 of 8 experimental conditions.
• Sigal ,J Braden ,J Aylward ,G (78):

  Results:

  • The results of Exp 1 shows that defendants with a personal motive for the crime were judged as "guilty" more frequently than defendants with no personal motivation.
  • Attractiveness of defendant or number of witnesses did not affect decisions
  • As a further investigation of the effect of attractiveness of defendant, Exp 2 used a photograph of a defendant who was criminal-like in appearance, didn’t affect decisions.
• Pre- trial publicity:

  • Media and other coverage of a case before trial takes place it is assumed that jury members will have heard or read up on the case on the internet and may make a biased opinion on the person which can negatively or positively influence the defendant making the verdict less reliable and fair.
• Ruva and MCevoy (2008):

  • Ruva and McEvoy carried out an experiment looking at the effects of being exposed to pre-trial publicity. They were interested in effects on juror memory and decision-making.​
  • Mock jurors read news articles with negative pre-trial publicity, positive pre-trial publicity or unrelated articles.​
  • 5 days later, ppts watched a videotaped murder trial and made decisions about guilt.​
  • Half of the jurors gave the verdict and had a memory test straight after watching the video; the other half did the same but two days after watching the video.​
• Ruva and Mcevoy:

  • Neither the verdicts nor the guilty ratings differed between those giving them immediately and those giving them after two days.​
  • They found that being exposed to pre-trail publicity affected the verdict and also perception of credibility of the defendant.​
  • What was also interesting was the finding that the pre-trial publicity was seen as part of the trial evidence, which memory studies looking at false memory and the effect of misinformation would predict.​
  • It was both negative and positive pre-trial publicity the affected juror decision-making.
• Thomas (2010):

  • Thomas, in her report about the fairness of juries, discusses a study focusing on media reporting of trials. ​
  • The study looked at long high-profile cases and shorter ones too, and drew conclusions about the effects of media reporting.​
  • It was found that jurors on high-profile cases were 70% more likely to recall media coverage than those on standard cases (11%)​
  • Most of the jurors saw reports during the trial rather than beforehand, which is not pre-trial publicity. However, a third of jurors heard pre-trial publicity.​
• Thomas (2010):

  • Jurors in trials with a lot pf publicity remembered TV reports- standard cases remembered reports in local newspapers.
  • When jurors recalled the emphasis on reports they tended to to remember publicity suggesting the defendants guilt. ​
  • In high-profile cases, 20% of the jurors who did remember media reports about the case found it hard to put reports about the case out of their mind.​
  • Jurors also looked at their cases on the internet during the trial, which they are not supposed to do.​
  • This information suggests that pre-trial publicity can negatively affect the defendant.