6.1.8 Jury decision making

Question 1

How many people make up a jury in the UK?

Answer 1

12

Question 2

Who are the jury and how are they chosen?

Answer 2

Random members of British public, not associated w case

Question 3

Describe the confidentiality of a jury.

Answer 3

• No one can talk to the jury during/before the trial
• They can’t discuss the case with anyone else and can only do so in the jury room

Question 4

Identify 2 different types of juries that are used to study them.

Answer 4

1) Mock juries

2) Shadow juries

Question 5

Describe a mock jury.

Answer 5

• A re-enactment of a courtroom,ppts take part in a staged trial
• Ea diff role eg jury member or the judge
• The jurors hear a summary of both sides of a mock case with evidence for both in a written scenario or sometimes a video clip
• They then discuss the case - 2 hours, separate room
• Researchers observe via one way mirror

Question 6

Evaluate 3 strengths of a mock jury.

Answer 6

1) High generalisability due to the selection process of the jurors being random which represents the real selection process of a real jury
2) High internal validity due to having the mock case controlled and set up therefore can establish cause and effect on factors affecting the jury’s decision
3) High application as useful for researching scenarios and variables that may affect juries leading to further research and potential changes to improve jury decision making in real life

Question 7

Evaluate 3 weaknesses of a mock jury.

Answer 7

1) Low validity due to the mock jurors knowing the case isn’t real therefore there are no stakes for them to be more invested in with the pressure of convicting
2) Low ecological validity due to not being a real case which would not reflect the real environment of the stress of the family and the person in question
3) Low validity due to the process of the trial being shortened and summarised which lacks mundane realism of a trial in real life that can take weeks due to complexities within the case

Question 8

Describe a shadow jury.

Answer 8

A- Ppl sit in real-life trial, often in the gallery
- They make a decision of guilty or not guilty based on what they see
- Their decision making is carefully monitored in a quiet room where all deliberations are recorded
-No influence over the trial

Question 9

Evaluate 2 strengths of a shadow jury.

Answer 9

1) High ecological validity as the trial is a real case with real evidence and case for and against therefore the results of factors affecting a jury are more credible
2) High ethics as the people in the shadow jury won’t experience the same level of psychological distress as a real juror may feel when trying to come to a verdict

Question 10

Evaluate 3 Weaknesses of a shadow jury.

Answer 10

1) Low generalisability due to it being hard to gain a sample that represents the random selection process of real juries
2) Low internal validity due to lack of control over variables of the trial such as the gender and age of the person on trial therefore hard to establish cause and effect
3) Low validity due to the shadow jury having no influence over the final verdict of the trial therefore they are aware of no consequences and so don’t experience the same pressure as a real jury

Question 11

Identify 3 factors affect jury decision making.

Answer 11

1) Pre-trial publicity
2) Characteristics of the defendant
3) Minority influence

Question 12

Describe pre-trial publicity (PTP) and how it may affect jury’s decision-making.

Answer 12

• The info in media about a trial before it begins
  > Incl facts about the crime , details abt defendants past offences, emotional details eg opinions
• Esp in high profile cases, it is hard for jurors to avoid seeing the publicity even if they’re told to ignore it
• Can have negative impact on their verdict if media portrays the defendant negatively or a positive impact if it is more positive

Question 13

How might schemas explain the impact of pre-trial publicity on a jury’s verdict?

Answer 13

• The jurors who are exposed to the publicity may form schemas of seeing the defendant in a positive or negative light depending on the media’s view
  > schema will then influences how info from the trial is remembered
  This can occur through rationalisation by forgetting a detail that does not conform with the positive/negative schema
  Or it can be done through confabulation of information by changing details to fit with the positive/negative schema

Question 14

Describe 3 supporting studies of pre-trial publicity affecting jury decision making.

Answer 14

1) Thomas (2010) used a shadow jury due to not being able to set up media and found that jurors in high profile cases are 70% more likely to recall media coverage compared to 11% of standard cases therefore showing they were unable to avoid the media
2) Steblay (1999) conducted a meta-analysis of 44 experiments with mock juries and found that pre-trial publicity affects jurors decisions about guilt of the defendant as those exposed were 59% more likely to give a guilty verdict than 45% of the controls
3) Daftary-Kapur (2014) used a mock and shadow jury and found that jurors exposed to more PTP were more likely to be bias with those exposed to pro-defence PTP gave a verdict in that direction and vice versa with pro-prosecution media however there was no significant difference between natural exposure and experimental suggesting mock juries do have ecological validity

Question 15

Evaluate 2 strengths of researching pre-trial publicity on jury decision making.

Answer 15

1) High ecological validity if shadow juries are used as they will be exposed to the same media coverage as the real jury and how it may affect the same real case
2) Has high application of findings as if it identifies there is bias then measures can be put in place to limit media exposure as much as possible.

Question 16

Describe the conclusion of pre-trial publicity affecting jury decision making.

Answer 16

Brown and Kulik (1977) suggests that highly emotional material is more likely to be remembered so there is an argument for not just looking at being exposed to PTP but looking at what the content is.

Question 17

Define the ‘halo effect’.

Answer 17

Idea that ppl who’re deemed attractive r perceived in a positive light
> eg. heroes = handsome, villains = ugly

Question 18

Describe the characteristic of attractiveness of the defendant and how it may affect jury’s decision making.

Answer 18

More attractive defendants are more likely to be treated leniently in sentencing & JDM than less attractive defendants.

Question 19

Describe 2 supporting studies of attractiveness affecting jury decision making.

Answer 19

1) Taylor + Butcher (2007), mock jury w 96 pps. Given transcript of fictional mugging w photo of attractive v unattract defendant. Pps tended to rate attractive ones as less guilty.
2) Signall + Obstrove (1975) 120 pps, asked to make sentence recs for defendant for either burglary or fraud. Given piece of card w B/F on it, plus photo of ady Barbara Helms. Pps asked to rate her attractiveness n give her a sentence between 1-15 yrs. Barbara found more guilty in prison w fraud condition, less for burglary. Suggests attractive ppl associated w fraud bc they use their looks to con ppl out of money, but unattractive ppl r associated w burglary

Question 20

Evaluate 2 weaknesses of researching attractiveness on jury decision-making.

Question 21

Describe the characteristic of race of the defendant and how it may affect jury’s decision making.

Answer 21

Link to social
If the defendant is part of a race that isn’t represented heavily/ at all in the jury, they’re more likely to be judged harshly due to the aspect of in and out groups whereby the jury majority race will be the in- group and the defendant being the out- group.

Question 22

Describe 3 supporting studies of race affecting jury decision making.

Answer 22

1) Bradbury + Williams (2013)- Black defendants more likely to be convicted of drug > violent/property crimes
Mostly white juries more likely to convict black defendants sig p<0.10
Mostly Hispanic juries more likely to convict black defendants sig p< 0.01
Black defendants less likely to be convicted by mainly black juries.
2) Skolnick + Shaw (1997)- Ivestigated ‘black racism hypothesis’. Pps read fiction transcript of a murder trial, defendant grp varied (black/white). Black jurors unlike white jurors, showed biased judgements that they were more likely to vote not guilty + more lenient in sentencing when defendant was black.
3) Pfiefer + Ogloff (1991)- mock jury- uni students, rated black defendants more guilty than white when accused of same crime

Question 23

Describe 3 rejecting studies of race affecting jury decision making.

Answer 23

1)Williams + Holcomb (2001)- Found defendant’s race didn’t predict death sentences in Ohio 1981-94, even when sample f cases was restricted to homicides w/ felony circumstances

Question 24

Link of racial bias to Uk?

Answer 24

Higher proportions of ethnic minorities in prison (15%) compared to 8% of UK gen pop, as we have a stereotypical view of black men being more likely to commit crimes

Question 25

How might studies in meta-analysis not be comparable?

Answer 25

Meta-analysis combines studies that use diff methods, surveys, real cases, fake cases, can affect validity of overall findings due to lack of standardised procedures and control over EVs so its hard to find cause and effect of factors affecting JDM.
Also decr reliability as experiments are hard to compare for factors affecting JDM