Chapter 9: Social Psychology in the Courtroom Flashcards
Joan Little example of change of venue
-1974 - Alligood (white jailer) was found dead in a locked cell - black woman Joan Little was the occupier of the cell but was not present at the time the body was found. - The pants of Alligood were found outside the cell. - Joan Little turned herself in sometime later and confessed to the killing, pleading self-defence; Alligood had tried to rape her. The media coverage in the area had led to prejudicial attitudes towards Joan and the trial was subsequently moved. She was acquitted following a 5-week trial
Laboratory Evidence of Impact of Pretrial publicity on jury - Ogloff and Vidmar
1994- 4 groups of participants recieved different levels of publicity regarding a mock sexual abuse case with boys in an orphanage. The first group received just the case facts, the second group received the prejudicial newspaper. the third group watched the prejudicial footage, while the 4th group read the newspaper and watched the footage. Those who were exposed to the prejudicial coverage were found to more likely to rate the defendant (priest) as guilty
Frederick (1987) reliable methodology to illustrate pretrial prejudice in a survey
(a) Jury eligible community of interest questioned (b) Baseline community questioned (c) Questions that include - perceived levels of publicity - Attitudes towards guilt of defendant - general attitudes
What should future research on pretrial prejudice focus on
The impact of the internet - publicity of a previous case defendant accused of - rumours
Saks issues with the Williams finding
The court was simply extrapolating empirical data to the court room - research on conformity suggests difference between 6 & 12 (ally - 1/6 -> change vote 2/12 -> no change)
Saks issues with the Colgrave decision
Faulty methodology in studies - confounding variables
In order to be eligible to be on the Jury in the US
- over 18 - Reside in judicial district for over a year - Be able to read, speak or understand English - Not have been charged or convicted of a crime - physical and mental capacity
Is the selection process in the US fair?
It has been found to be discriminatory against low SES and minorities
Exemptions for jurors
- Police officer/fire fighter - public posting - Age (70 +) -Undue hardship
Three Social Psychologists’ Jury Selection Techniques
-Survey Approach - In-court attitude ratings - in-court non-verbal communication
Survey Approach
Approaching members of community and surveying them about the trial and asking how they would respond as juror (taking demographic info)
In-court Attitude Ratings
Asking potential jurors about how they would respond to the facts of the case + personality Qs
In Court non-verbal Communication
Judgement based on body language of those in the Venire
What is suggested as future research direction in jury composition?
Venire selction - trying to make it more representative of total jurisdiction pop (supplementary info such as drivers license instead of just voters list)
Juror Questioning by Attorneys - Canadian model does not allow such extensive qs - does this produce a more unbiased jury?
What are two extra-evidential factors in juror bias?
Race and SES - it has been found that white jurors more likely to assign lengthier sentence to black defendant ESPECIALLY if victim white
SES - According to research low SES tended to be treated more harshly than high status defendants
- due to speech style
