3.6 The Psychology of Juries Flashcards
origin of juries
- in Egypt 4000 years ago
- ordinary citizens selected by lottery
- until 1670 juries could be fined/imprisoned if disagreed with judge verdict
Australia: who can be member of jury
citizens, >= 18, no ex-prisoners within 10 yrs, senators, judges, MP, med, armed forces, police exempt
Main jury function
apply the law to evidence and render a verdict of guilt or innocence
- use wisdom of 12
- act as community conscience
- protect against out-of-date laws
Jury nullification
juries may ignore the law and render a verdict based on other criteria, where juries believe law is unfair
Impartiality + threats to impartiality
- lack of bias from jurors
threats: pre-existing bias, prejudice, negative pretrial publicity
representativeness
- representative of community via random selection
- affected by how panel selected, % turning up to court, who avoids, disqualified
process of jury selection
- random selection from voter lists
- selected = summoned to pretrial gathering from which jurors selectedt
peremptory challenge
right to reject potential juror w/o reason. LIMITED
challenge for a cause
unlimited right to challenge with REASON e.g. clear bias, conflict of interest, prior knowledge, inability to understand case
US vs Aus jury selection
US: use trial consultants to select jury sympathetic to case (have more peremptory generally)
Aus: unheard of trial consultants
what does the evidence suggest about most important determining factors of jury verdicts?
- demographic variables do NOT consistently predict verdicts
- AVAILABLE EVIDENCE much better predictor
- if evidence is ambiguous, juror personalities have effect
scientific jury selection pros/cons
+
favour: picking jury w/ science better than intuition, problem in peremptory
-
tips scales of justice towards wealthy who can afford it
post-trial interviews uses + limitations
uses: data source for judges, challenges etc
limitations: impossible in many countries, forbidden from discussing case, social desirability of responses, inaccurate recall
archival records
using records of trials (transcripts, police interviews)
limitations: can’t establish cause-effect, can’t ask specific questions
simulation techniques
mock jurors participate in simulated trial, make verdict
+ve: Independent variables can be manipulated
-ve: not necessarily generalisable to real life`
field studies
research conduced within a real trial
+ve: enables real-time research, high ecological validity
limitations: court permission difficult, no controlling variables
List the stages involved in reaching a verdict in order
- listening to the evidence
- disregarding inadmissible evidence
- judge’s instructions
- juror decision-making
- deliberations
- the final verdict
listening to evidence
1
- jurors can ask questions to witnesses via judge + take notes (notes generally helpful aid), questions may clarify but don’t help in uncovering truth
disregarding inadmissible evidence
2
- inadmissible statements/evidence can be instructed to be disregarded
- can make it worse - draw attention, jurors won’t actually ignore it (want to reach truth regardless of legal technicalities)
judge’s instructions
3
- jurors don’t remmeber, understand, accurately apply judicial instructions
- reforms suggested: rewrite instructions, provide written copy
juror decision-making no. + model types
4
mathematical models
explanation models
mathematical models
views jury decision-making as set of mental calculations - mathematical weight attached to each piece of evidence, BUT jurors DON’T put a value to each piece of evidence
explanation models
suggest evidence organised into coherent whole e.g. STORY model: impose story structure, more CONSISTENT w/ how jurors make their decisions
jury deliberation
5
leniency bias
tendency for jury deliberation to tilt towards acquittal
group polarisation
individuals become more extreme in initial position following group discussion
minority influence
not overly likely in jury situations BUT
* minority that favours acquittal stands better chance than one favouring conviction
* more vocal, persuasive, logical reason can persuade
the final verdict
6
- 2/3 majority schemeL jury verdicy is usually what is favoured by at least 2/3 of jury at outset
- as of 2011, 11:1 are accepted after failing unanimity
hung jury
jury that cannot reach a verdict
predictor: Demographics
- relation small + inconsistent
- may be interaction between demographics of jury + defendant/nature of offence
- jurors likely harsher towards other race defendants
- when defendants’ race salient, white bias towards black reduced
predictor: Personality
- moderate link: authoritarian personality + guilty verdict
- male, extrovert, tall = more persuasive
predictor: Attitudes
- jurors willing to give death penalty more lkikely to give guilty verdict
predictor: Defendant Characteristics
- criminal history impacts verdicts
- less attractive defendants found to be guilty when jury didn’t deliberate, but attractive more likely to be found guilty when jury deliberates
similarity-latency hypothesis
jurors who share characteristics with defendant will be lenient
black-sheep effect
similarity between defendant and mock jurors predicted leniency EXCEPT WHERE EVIDENCE AGAINST DEFENDANT WAS VERY STRONG: in which case more severe
Arguments against juries
- trial by peers doesn’t guarantee fairness
- jury not always represent comm unity
- no accountability in reason for decision by jury
- often rsult in mistrial/hung juries
- expensive + slow
- juries sometimes don’t understand/remember evidence
TOO IMPORTANT TO BE LEFT TO AMATEURS
Arguments FOR juries
- important civic responsibility, community involvement in justice
- decsision of group of peer more acceptable to defendant than decision of single representative judge
- jurors possess common sense
- can deviate from letter of law if feel appropriate
judge or jury?
- judges return same verdict as jury in 78% of cases
- most legal experts agree retain juries
