Criminological- Jury Decision Making

Question 1

How are Jurors selected?

Answer 1

Randomly selected from the electoral roll

Question 2

Who is eligible to serve on a jury?

Answer 2

Any adult aged between 18 and 70 years old

Question 3

Who is not eligible to serve on a jury?

Answer 3

Any adult who is on bail for a conviction. If an individual has been sentenced in the past 5 years, or imprisoned in the last 10 years

Question 4

What is the main research question in this field?

Answer 4

WHAT ARE THE MAIN FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE JURY DECISION MAKING PROCESS?

Question 5

What are the Main Areas of Research in Factors Influencing Jury Decision Making

Answer 5

A. Pre-trial Factors
•Pre- trial publicity
B. Factors During the Trial
•Characteristics of the Defendant
-Attractiveness
-Race
-Accent
-Gender

Question 6

Decision Making
KEY ISSUES & DEBATES
Practical Issues in the Design and Implementation of Research

Answer 6

A major problem for researchers in investigating what factors influence jury decision making is the fact that juries are sworn to secrecy about their deliberations, which take place behind closed doors. They are prohibited by law from discussing the trial both during and after the event. This is a problem because it becomes very difficult to design realistic research on juries and means researchers must rely on mock trials and simulations to investigate the factors that influence their decisions.

Question 7

Describe what is meant by the term Pre- Trial Publicity

Answer 7

Jurors can be influenced before the trial ever takes place.
Often there is pre-trial publicity, and jurors can be aware of a case before they are elected to be on the jury. The internet, television and social media are all easily accessible, allowing members of the public access to huge amounts of information before and during a trial.

Question 8

Describe and Apply research that applies to explaining the impact of Pre-Trail Publicity

Answer 8

Fein et al (1997) used the real 0.J. Simpson case and cuttings from newspapers, and set up a mock jury to see if pre-trial publicity would affect a juror’s decision:
• Jurors were more likely to say ‘guilty’ if they had access to pre-trial publicity: around 80% of mock jurors said ‘guilty’ given pre-trial publicity,
•Only 45% voted guilty’ if race were mentioned in the cuttings. So if the reporting mentioned race, jurors were likely not to be affected by the publicity, thinking of it as racist.
•
Conclusion: On the whole, evidence suggests that publicity both before and during the trial can be quite a powerful influence on jury decision making.
Thomas (2010) analysed 62 real-life cases such as the OJ Simpson trial and found that jurors remembered media coverage 70% of the time if it was a high-profile case, but the figure was 11% for jurors serving in low-profile cases. In the high-profile cases, 20% of the jurors said that they found it difficult to these reports out of their mind.
Steblay et al (1999) found that jurors exposed to negative pre-trial publicity were significantly more likely to judge the defendant guilty compared to those exposed to less or no negative publicity.

Question 9

Give definitions and examples of the two different types of information involved in pre-trial publicity.

Answer 9

Factual information- likely to include incriminating information about the defendant or the case such as what happened during the crime.
Emotional information- may not contain incriminating information but is likely to present information that could arouse negative emotions such as information about the victim or defendants past.

Question 10

EVALUATION OF PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY strengths

Answer 10

•APPLICATION - The use of psychological knowledge within society; The evidence provided by psychologists on the effects of pre-trial publicity is important in society because it allows researchers tor
raise evidence based concerns about the rapidly increasing potential for jury bias to occur in the current era of 24/7 TV news and constant access to online news and social media commentary e.g. twitter.
•Ethics Most of this research is ethical in that it tends to use mock juries and imaginary’ cases.
This allows researchers to manipulate variables that would not be practical or ethical in a real trial.
•EVIDENCE FOR - Psychology as a Science: There is a great deal of evidence from well controlled lab-based experiments to support the idea that pre-trial publicity biases the decisions of juries (examples previous).

Question 11

EVALUATION OF PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY- weaknesses in relation to methodology

Answer 11

METHODOLOGY
• Ethical Issues: Real jurors cannot be exposed to real pre-trial publicity before they serve on a jury due to the fact that biases may be formed, and this may lead to miscarriages of justice.
Therefore, the research in this field is ethically constrained. This problem has a knock-on effect.
•Practical issues in the design and implementation of research: ethical issues raised with real juries means that psychologists must attempt to design realistic research on jury decision making: trial simulations and mock juries have to be used and the ‘jurors’ have to be exposed deliberately to pre-trial media sources. This leads to…
• Low ecological validity: The research can be limited by artificial situations leading to verdicts from the ‘mock jurors’ that may not reflect the influence of real pre-trial publicity on the decision making of real jurors. Even when real pre trail material is used, as in Fein et al (1997) above, the participants still understand that they are not on the real jury and so may not give a realistic verdict. This makes the findings from research on how pre-trial publicity influences the decisions of such mock juries difficult to generalise to real juries.

Question 12

EVALUATION OF PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY- weaknesses in relation to reductionism

Answer 12

Reductionism: can be a problem in research on pre-trial publicity. This is because in the experimental studies the researchers attempt to isolate and manipulate the IV of pre-trial publicity to establish cause and effect links between this factor and the verdicts juries give. But such reductionism oversimplifies the way in which juries make their decisions on guilt which, in reality involves the influence of many factors including factors during the trial and afterwards in the jury decision making room.

Question 13

Apply the process of stereotyping from the social approach affecting jury decision making

Answer 13

Stereotyping is a process of social cognition which involves:
•Noticing something about a person
•Categorising them to a particular group of people based on this characteristic (labelling)
•Assuming the person has the other characteristics of that group
If a defendant looks a certain way they maybe stereotyped as a criminal. For example if a defendant is male and has tattoos, a member of the jury may label them as a criminal and this would impact of their decision as a member of the Jury.

Question 14

How could Schema theory apply to whether or not someone is judged for their Gender/ Race or Stereotype?

Answer 14

An individual can be judged due to their gender and this may even influence a jury when making a decision. People on a jury may assume that males are more likely to commit violent crimes than females. This is due to pre-existing schemas with gender.

Question 15

Identify Characteristics that could influence a Jury when making a decision

Answer 15

ATTRACTIVENESS
RACE
ACCENT
Gender

Question 16

Describe attractiveness of the defendant as a characteristic

Answer 16

Research indicates that:
•Attractive people - considered less likely to have committed a crime
•Jury - less likely to give ‘guilty’ verdict.
• They also receive less harsh sentences
Sigall & Osgrove (1975) found that more attractive defendants received shorter sentences for burglary than unattractive defendants, but longer for fraud.
This is possibly because…
• Attractive defendants do not do not fit the stereotype of a criminal.

Question 17

Further research suggesting attractiveness of defendant affects jury decision making

Answer 17

Abwender and Hough (2001) investigated the Attractiveness Leniency Hypothesis found that female participants were more lenient towards an attractive female defendant, and less lenient towards an unattractive defendant. Male participants displayed the opposite tendency, (lenient towards unattractive male defendants compared to attractive male defendants).

Question 18

How has this research on attractiveness been used in everyday life

Answer 18

This research has not gone unnoticed by lawyers, who instruct their clients to present themselves in court in a smart and tidy fashion, even if it is not how they would typically dress. This might help reduce any negative stereotypes the jury may have against the defendant

Question 19

What is the halo effect

Answer 19

The halo effect is a particular form of stereotyping that produces a bias in everyday social cognition whereby our perception of a person we meet is influenced by one particular positive trait or characteristic that makes us think about them positively. An example would be judging a good-looking person as more intelligent or kinder than a less attractive person Within our society, physical attractiveness is prized highly in both sexes and we might treat such people positively. Dion et al, physically attractive people are assumed to have other attractive properties. She carried out an experiment in which she showed photographs to people, and asked them to make a judgment of the people in the photos. In the results, physically attractive people were assumed to have other positive characteristics over people who were deemed less physically attractive. They were often perceived to be good, earn more money, be more intelligent and lead more successful lives.

Question 20

Explain how the halo effect could influence the decision making of a jury in reaching their verdict.

Answer 20

• The Halo effect in jurors would mean their perception of a defendant is influenced by how attractive he she is.
• Jurors may judge a good-looking defendant as ‘good’ and ‘trustworthy’ and therefore far less likely to be a criminal
• Therefore they might give a not guilty verdict.

Question 21

1. Describe how attractiveness of the defendant can influence jury decision making (4 marks)

Answer 21

• Research indicates that physically attractive people seem to be considered as less likely to have committed a crime and so the decision of the jury is less likely to be ‘guilty’ (1 mark).
• For example, Castellow et al. (1990) conducted a lab experiment and found that attractive defendants were found guilty 56% of the time compared to 76% for unattractive offenders (1 mark)
This is because attractive defendants do not fit the stereotype of a criminal which tends to see criminal as unattractive. Within our society, physical attractiveness is prized highly in both sexes - others treat such people positively. (1 mark)
• This might because of a cognitive bias called the Halo-effect: a form of stereotyping where people who are physically attractive are also seen to have other positive attributes such as ‘good’ and ‘trustworthy’, (Dion et al.), which means they are less likely to see them as being guilty (1 mark)

Question 22

Describe evidence supporting race as a characteristic

Answer 22

THERE IS EVIDENCE OF RACIAL BIAS IN JURY DECISION MAKING.
Case study: The OJ Simpson Case
STAHLY AND WALKER (1997)
• who worked for the legal defence team, noted the psychological processes at work among viewers of the trial.
• They highlighted the role of social identity and linked this to the fact that viewers tended to recall only certain information when making a decision on guilt.
• For example, white Americans saw the guilt of Simpson because of the physical evidence against him
• while the African-Americans saw police misconduct.

Question 23

Several lab based experiments using mock jurors show that the race of a defendant does affect the verdict of a jury. For example:

Answer 23

Bradbury and Williams (2013)
Results
Black defendants were:
• Less likely to be convicted by juries composed mostly of black jurors.
• More likely to be convicted by juries of mostly white jurors
• More likely to be convicted by juries of mostly Hispanic
Conclusion
• Diversity within the jury pool is likely to have an impact on the outcome of their decision making.
• The selection process of jury members can therefore bias the outcome of the trial.
this research uses data from real juries in the USA and finds racial bias in juries. This research increases the ecologically validity of the research

Question 24

Give evidence from a lab experiment contradicting other findings from race and why this may be

Answer 24

SKOLNICK AND SHAW (1997)
whether the juror was black or white, the black defendant always received fewer guilty verdicts irrespective of the race of the juror. Evidence contradicts other findings
• However it is possible that white participants in particular might be fearful of being accused of
•in other words the mock jurors in these studies gave socially desirable verdicts.

Question 25

Explain what is meant by the idea that mock jurors in lab based experiments may give ‘socially desirable’ verdicts.

Answer 25

As juror participants are in a lab experiment they know they are being studied.
They are aware that their verdicts may be seen.
They may give an answer that ensures they are seen in a positive light to the researchers i.e. not as racists. These are socially desirable responses.

Question 26

Describe evidence for accent as a characteristic

Answer 26

• MAHONEY & DIXON (1997)
• Looked at effect on strong regional accents on verdict
• Birmingham accent perceived as guilty significantly more often than non-Birmingham accent
• Black person with Birmingham accent perceived as most guilty of all.
Seggie (1983) in a study in Australia found similar results. An Australian with a ‘standard’ accent was thought of as more guilty where white-collar (fraud, money laundering) crimes were concerned, but an Australian with a ‘broad’ accent was seen as more guilty for blue collar crimes (crimes of a lower social class).

Question 27

Rahul is a defendant on trial accused of arson. As he begins to give his account during the trial, the jury notice that his accent is from the North of England. Explain what impact Rahul’s accent could have on a Jury whilst they are making their decision. [4 marks]

Answer 27

• P: Rahul has an accent from the North of England, which may influence the juries decision on his guilt. E: Mahoney & Dixon (1997) found that defendants with a Birmingham accent were perceived as guilty significantly more often than those with a standard British accent.
• P: If Rahul had a broad accent, the jury may be more likely to see him guilty of arson. E: Seggie (1983) found that Australians with broad accents were more likely to be perceived as guilty of blue collar crimes, like arson. This could mean that Rahul’s different accent could influence the jury into delivering a guilty verdict.

Question 28

Evaluation of Research into the Characteristics of the Defendant- Methodology strengths

Answer 28

METHODOLOGY: Psychology as a Science: Much of the research that investigates the influence of the characteristics of a defendant on jury verdicts is in the form of lab based experiments which have a great deal of scientific credibility because of their empirical nature i.e.
hypotheses, where the variables are clearly defined and directly observable, are tested in an experiment. Quantitative data, from precise measurement of outcomes, are collected and analysis can be done in an objective manner - value free and unbiased.
Extraneous variables are often controlled so that cause and effect links can be clearly established.
•Replicability: In addition, the replicability of the research is high as the extensive use of lab-based experiments means that standardised procedures are used. This increases the reliability of the research in this field and credibility I enhanced.

Question 29

Evaluation of Research into the Characteristics of the Defendant- Methodology weaknesses

Answer 29

METHODOLOGY: Low Internal Validity: The use of lab based exper ments are problemate as there may be demand characteristics present in simulated and mock trials, so the validity of the results is threatened because mock jurors make the decisions they think the researchers want rather than responding as a real jury would. In addition, the validity of this research is lowered as the DV in most of the research is measured by asking participants to give her verdict This kind of self-report data collection is prone to socially desirable answers, for example, a white mock juror may give a not guilty verdict to a black defendant because they don’t want to be accused of racism.
i Low ecological validity: It is not legal in this country to question jurors, so evidence about the factors which influence jury decision-making comes from studies of mock juries. The main problem for mock trials and mock juries is that the participants know that their decision will not have real consequences. This has the effect of removing the seriousness of the situation for the jury. If a mock jury knows that their decision does not really affect an individual in the way that a real jury decision can affect them, they are likely to make different decisions. In addition, mundane realism is lacking from such studies. For example, written summaries or videos are used to present the evidence, and in real juries, a verdict is not decided alone, it is decided by a discussion with other people on the jury. This will reduce the accuracy of the findings.
Generalisability
There are serious issues with the samples used in jury decision making research. The participants in lab experiments are rarely real jury groups. More often than not they are a Collection of students who may be very different from juries drawn from wider society. This poses another threat to the generalisability of the research.
a Practical issues in the design and implementation of research: A major practical problem for researchers trying to find out about what factors influence juries is that it is very difficult to isolate variables in order to find out which factors are the most important. Juries are infiuenced by a number of complex interacting factors. So, using well controlled experimental mock jury studies may be accused of taking a reductionist approach in that the focus is on just one or two main variables that may be influencing the verdict of the jury.
@Cultural Issues: Most of the research in this area was conducted by researchers in the USA and the UK so there is a possibility of ethnocentric bias. This limits the reliability of the findings on juries reaching a verdict as it is possible that the findings of this research may not be replicated in other countries where the legal system has different rules or in different cultures where for example, regard for social superiors or males may be more likely. In fact, one recent study conducted in England (Taylor 2002) did not find attractiveness of the defendant as an important influence on jury verdicts.

Question 30

Evaluation of Research into the Characteristics of the Defendant- Alternatives

Answer 30

I ALTERNATIVES: The focus of this field is on the characteristics of defendants, such as attractiveness, and how this may influence jury decision making. This is a reductionist approach to understanding the complex influences on juries as there are many factors influencing a jury at the same time. This means the findings research provides on the importance of the characteristics of defendants for how jury’s reach their verdict may be inaccurate as it does not takes account of all the other variables at work, such as individual differences in the jurors themselves.
in particular, the characteristics of the witnesses presented can influence the jury. For example, rather than the actual evidence given by a witness it has been found that witness confidence can affect jury decision-making.
A number of experimental studies have suggested that mock jurors are likely to return a guilty verdict on the basis of testimony from confident witnesses; and conversely to place less credibility on the testimony of the less confident witnesses.
Conclusion: It would be fascinating to be able to study a real jury come to its verdict on a true case, but this is never likely to happen and so we have to use mock trials and mock juries. This creates many problems of generalisability and validity, which means we have to be cautious in applying the results of research in this on how the characteristics of the defendant influence jury decision making to real life.

Question 31

Evaluation of Research into the Characteristics of the Defendant- Application

Answer 31

APPLICATION - The Use of Psychological knowledge within society: Psychological research in this field has useful practical applications for defendants because it can be applied to how the defendant presents himself/herself in court.
For example, defendants can be instructed to dress in a smart and tidy manner, even if this is not how they would usually dress. This can help reduce negative stereotypes that some jurors might have against the defendant based on a more casual appearance as perhaps they might expect a person to dress smartly for court to show respect for the process. This can, in turn, influence the jury’s decision as to whether the defendant is found guilty.

Question 32

What were the findings about physically attractive defendants in Castellow’s study?

Answer 32

• Attractive defendants were found guilty 56% of the time, whereas unattractive defendants were found guilty 76% of the time.
• Attractive defendants were also rated positively on personality variables.

Question 33

Comment on the ecological validity of Castellow et al’s study (use PEEC).

Answer 33

P=One weakness of Castellow’s study is that it uses a mock trial to study the effects of physical attractiveness on jury verdicts in sexual harassment cases which lowers it’s ecological validity.
E= This is a problem because mundane realism is lacking the study which means that it was nothing like the experience of real juries meaning that any findings are difficult to generalise to the verdicts that real juries might give.
E= For example, all participants in Castellow’s study were asked to read a sexual harassment case, attached were pictures of the defendant and the victim, these were either attractive or unattractive. This is clearly unlike real trial where juries usually actually see the defendant and victim and they hear most of the evidence over a period of days.
C= Further more in real juries, a verdict is not decided alone, it is decided by a discussion with other people on the jury. This will reduce the accuracy of the findings.
C= Furthermore, the participants know that their decision will not have real consequences. This has the effect of removing the seriousness of the situation for the jury. If a mock jury knows that their decision does not really affect an individual in the way that a real jury decision can affect them, they are likely to make different decisions.

Question 34

What does of Castellow et al’s study tell us about the halo effect and jury decision making?

Answer 34

• Attractiveness does matter when juries are reaching a verdict in sexual harassment cases, with more attractive defendants being less likely to be found guilty.
• This may be explained by the fact that physically attractive defendants and victims were assumed by jurors to have other positive characteristics, so the halo effect seems to be at work.

Question 35

How could the results from Castellow et al’s study be useful to the defendant and his/ her legal team?

Answer 35

•The results of Castellow’s study have practical applications for defendants because it can be applied to how the defendant presents himself/herself in court.
• For example, defendants can be instructed to dress in a smart and tidy manner, even if this is not how they would usually dress.
•This can help reduce negative stereotypes that some jurors might have against the defendant based on a more casual appearance as perhaps they might expect a person to dress smartly for court to show respect for the process.
•This can, in turn, influence the jury’s decision as to whether the defendant is found guilty.

Question 36

Use one psychological theory to explain why a black juror might be more likely to acquit a black defendant? (2 marks)

Answer 36

•Social identity theory can explain why a black juror might be more likely to acquit a black defendant.
• This because of in- group bias/favouritism - we favour people who we feel are part of our group. In this case a black juror sees a black defendant as part of his social group and therefore thinks he/she is unlikely to be guilty or just lets them off.

Question 37

Use one psychological theory to explain why a white juror might be less likely to acquit a black defendant?

Answer 37

• Social identity theory
• This is because of in- group bias/prejudice - we are biased against defendants who are not part of our group and are less likely to see them as not guilty.
OR
• Negative stereotypes: Racism
• White jurors may have negative stereotypes of black defendants thinking a black person is likely to be guilty as he/she sees black people as likely to be criminals.

Question 38

Summarise the findings of Skolnick and Shaw (1997)

Answer 38

• Black mock jurors were more to acquit a black defendant than a white defendant
• This was also true of white mock jurors