Factors Affecting Jury Decision Making: Deffendant Characteristics

Question 1

Deffendant Characteristics

What are they?????

Answer 1

Devine’s 2000 research human judgment is affect by schemas and scripts and how characteristics of a defendant can affect a jurors decision

These characteristics are as followed: race, gender, social class, accent, attractiveness and attitudes

Question 2

Deffendant Characteristics

Racial bias

Answer 2

Racial bias is when decisions are affected by people’s race either due to not being the same rate as then or stereotypes based on the other race etc

this may be applied to jury decision making as if the defendant is a different race to a jury then racial bias may take place and they are more likely to come to a guilty verdict

Question 3

Deffendant Characteristics

Race, evidence

Answer 3

27% of the prison population identifies as an ethnic minority

only 18% do in the general population

so over represented in prisom
so more likley to be convicted

studies show white jurors more likley to find Black defendant guilty than a white one

And Black defendats received harsher sentences than white defendants for the same crime so it also affects The Judge’s decision

Question 4

Deffendant Characteristics

Race Evidence

Mitchell et al 2005 +

Answer 4

Mitchell et al 2005

Conducted a meta analysis and found a small yet significant effect of racial bias in juror decision-making across all studies

Therefore this is evidence to support the fact that characteristics such as race affect jury decision-making

Question 5

Deffendant Characteristics

Race evidence

Austin and Allen 2000 +

Answer 5

Austin and Allen

The examined a number of defendants between 1991 and 1995 in Pennsylvania

in relation to the number of arrests between 1990 and 1994

This was found to be a disproportionate ratio of minorities to White in Pennsylvania prisons

There are two factors of why this may have occurred either due to different Crimes committed (which arrest rate was used as a proxy for) or racism

Arrest rate: 43% of arrests
meaning Racism was responsible for 57% of Arrests

when Drug offences are removed from the statistics

Arrest rate: 70%
Race: 30%

meaning a Disproportionate amount of arests that were due to race were in Drug related ctimes

so Austin and Allen 2000 supports the fact that Race affects jury decision making as Race was a large % of why aressts occured

and of these drug related crimes are most suseptable to this bias

Question 6

Deffendant Characteristics

Race Evidence

Baldus et al 2002 +

Answer 6

Baldus et al 2002

found that Race influenced death centence rates

as black defendants was found to be 4x as likely to receive the death centence than white defendants

Showing a disproportionate bias towards Racial minoritys in Death centences

meaning Baldus et al 2002 shows how Race affects Jury decison making as Black defendants were More likley to be convicted and given the death sentence than white defendants

Question 7

Deffendant Characteristics

Race Evidence

Williams and Holcomb 2001 - ☆

Answer 7

Williams ans Holcomb 2001

Found that Defender race didn’t predict death sentences in Ohio between 1981-94

Even when the sample of cases was restricted to Homocide and Felony

Meaning that there was No racial bias found in Death centences in Ohio 1981-94 as it couldnt be used to predict whether a death centence was to be given or not for the crime

meaning Williams and Holcomb 2001 is Evidence opposing the idea that Race of the defendants affects Jury decision making

Question 8

Deffendant Characteristics

Race evidence

Poulson 1990 - ☆

Answer 8

Poulson 1990

found that white defendants were treated more harshley than Black defendants

as Black defendants were more likley ti be allocated NGRI which may lead to Discharge or Treatment/care

but in terms of Guilty verdicts, race wasn’t a significant factor

meaning Poulson 1990 is evidence opposing The idea that Race affects Jury decision making as it found Race didn’t have a significant affect on Guilty verdict rates

Question 9

Deffendant Characteristics

Race Evidence

Sweeny and Haney 1992 +

Answer 9

Sweeny and Haney 1992

meta analysis

14 studies 2836 ppts

Defined racial bias as black defendants treated disproportionatly in sentencing decisions by white Jurors

found a Small but significant racial bias

when studying Victim race also increased racial bias
(if victim same as jury but defendant isnt ect)

also found white ppts more likley to give larger sentences to Black defendants than white defendants

Therefore showing how due to finding Significant evidence supporting Racial bias affecting Jury decision making, the research of Sweeny and Haney in 1992 supports that fact.

Question 10

Deffendant Characteristics

Race evidence

Mazzella and Feingold 1994 -

Answer 10

Mazzella and Feingold 1994

meta analysis

29 studies 6709 ppts

had black jurors in jury in the study too

had minoritt black offenders and white offenders too

Finds no significant racial bias in jury decison making, meaning Mazzella and Feingold’s 1994 research opposes the idea that Race affects jury decision making

Question 11

Deffendant Characteristics

Race evidence

Thomas 2010 - ☆

Answer 11

Thomas 2010

41 all white Juries given identical case where only race of the Defendant and victim varied

Found all white Juries didn’t discriminate agains BAME (black and minority ethnics) defendants

and were not more likley to convict a black or asian defendant than a white ine

additionaly, white jurors had lower conviction rates than racialy mixed juries

therefore due to finding no evidence of Racial bias, Thomas 2010, opposes the idea that race affects jury decision making, and increasing Conviction rates.

Question 12

Deffendant Characteristics

issue with american jury studies

Answer 12

The American Judith rule system consists of different laws to every state therefore different circumstances or offences or attitudes

meaning that it is difficult to fairly and efficiently compare studies in a meta analysis on cases from different states attitudes to different crimes and attitudes to for example race of the defendant

therefore meaning the results of these studies cannot be accurately compared and be used to come to a valid conclusion in a meta analysis due to the differences in laws and attitudes

For example stereotypically in the Southern states of the USA they would be more typical and susceptible to racial bias against black defendants likely due to the American Civil War

Question 13

Deffendant Characteristics

Accents

Answer 13

It’s likely that having a regional accent and not a generic accent is likely to lead to an increase in conviction rates and jury bias

For example if a murder was committed and two Suspects made the following two comments

ar bay avin this, i day does it, i was at the boozer when sum numpty knocked into me. I turned around ter yav a goo, an’ ee was already in the floower, bleedin from his stomach.

vs

I’m terribly sorry but I have no idea what happened all I know is someone knocks into me at the bar and when I turn around is on the floor bleeding from the stomach

The one with the regional accent is more likely to be convicted of the Crime due to stereotypes that they are a bit rough

Question 14

Deffendant Characteristics

Accents evidence

Dixon et al 2002 + ☆

Answer 14

Dixon et al 2002

Looked the effect of regional accents on the attribution of guilt

Used a recorded conversation between a male suspect and a male police officer

which was played to 119 White undergraduate psychology students from the University of Worcester

24 m 95f with a mean age of 25.2 years

participants who grew up in Birmingham were excluded as they may have responded in a bias way

The accent was varied so participants either heard a Birmingham accent or a standard British accent

Guilty ratings with significantly higher for the Birmingham accent in the standard British accent

and black participants were not rated significantly more guilty than white participants

which led to conclusion that race alone may not affect guilty verdicts

This study was a replication of their 1997 study which was also replicated in 2004 finding the same outcome each time

Due to finding that regional accents were more likely to be convicted than standard British accents for a crime,

Dixson supports the idea that accent affects jury decision making and increases the likelihood of a conviction being made

Question 15

Deffendant Characteristics

Accent evidence

Mahoney and Dixon 1997 + ☆

Answer 15

Mahoney and Dixon 1997

found that having a brummie accent was seen as having Low status

and therefore more likely to be found guilty out of many other accents

black people with a brummie accent were the most likely to be found guilty out of everyone regardless of other case factors

suggesting that both race and accent are the most important characteristics that affects jury decision making

meaning Mahoney and Dixon 1997 supoorts the idea that Accent affects jury decision making

Question 16

Deffendant Characteristics

Accents ev

Mahoney and Dixon 1997 weaknesses ☆

Answer 16

Mahoney and Dixon 1997

The study use tape recordings of police interviews and no other evidence was presented

this means that the study did not give the same emotions as a real case or perceived stakes

therefore leading to a decrease of motivation to get the person who committed the crime correctly

and due to the lower Stakes that meant they were calmer to do better analysis

and maybe they had social desirability bias as they can say what they think the experimenter wants them to say to get praise??? as they may know that it’s not a real case

these all leads to Mahoney and Dixon 1997 having low ecological validity and mundane realism

The research is also potentially socially sensitive as it is potentially harmful to all those Brummie accents

as now the accent may have a criminal stereotype

which made lead to prejudice against people with brummie accents

as they think they’re criminals

which may lead to self furfilling prophecy increasing the crime rate

Making the implication on the community affected negative

and therefore making the study unethical too as it affects society negativley

Question 17

Deffendant Characteristics

accent

combating it

Answer 17

A defendant may be encouraged to speak in a neutral accent instead of a regional accent

which may decrease the jury’s bias towards them making it less likely for them to come to a guilty verdict and conviction

Question 18

Deffendant Characteristics

attractivness

why affect?

Answer 18

The attractive person committing a certain type of crime may affect conviction rates

for example an attractive person committing fraud would increase the conviction rate as the jury Feels they are taking advantage of their looks

while murder May decrease the chance of the conviction as somebody who’s attractive is perceived as kind and sophisticated and clever

and is perceived that they are less likely to be guilty

Question 19

Deffendant Characteristics

Attractivness bias

Answer 19

Attractivness bias

is the tendancy to see Attractive people as more intelligent, competent, moral, sociable than unatractive people

so Attractive people are perceived more positivley than unatractive people

In Jurys

An Attractive Defendant may be treated more leniantly than an unatractive one

To avoid this defendants are encoraged to Dress nicely when going to court to reduce this bias
and reduce their guilty chance

Question 20

Deffendant Characteristics

attractivness

example in films

Answer 20

in classic films:

Good guys are Attractive like Cinderella or batman or Luke skywalker

where as Bad guys are unatractive: like the ugly step sisters and the Joker and The Emperor

so we tend to see unatractive as Guilty and bad

Question 21

Deffendant Characteristics

Atractiveness evidence

Sigall and Obstrove 1975 + ☆

Answer 21

Sigall and Obstrove 1975

120 participants to make sentence recommendations of a defendant for either burglary or fraud

they were given a piece of card with the crime written on it and a photograph of a lady called Barbara Helms

told to rate her attractivness and give a sentence of 1-15 years for the crime

   A      Un   Ctrl (no pic) B     2.8   5.2   5.1

F 5.4 4.35 4.35

the Results showed that longer sentence for atractive in Fraud and Shorter for Atractive in Burgalary

Showing how Attractivness has an impact in jury decision making

as attravtive percived as taking advantage of looks in faud

and perceived as sophisticated so less likley to do burglary

so Sigall and Obstrove 1975 is evidence supporting the link between attractiveness and Jury decision making

Question 22

Deffendant Characteristics

Atractivness evidence

Verr 1978 +

Answer 22

Verr 1978

found defendant most likley to be convicted when the victim was “beautiful and blamless”

showing how Verr 1978 supoorts the idea Attractivness affects jury decison as when victim attractive then defendat found Guilty compared to Unatract Victim

Question 23

Deffendant Characteristics

Attractivness

Halo and Horn effect

Answer 23

Halo Effect

Cognative bias where singal positive quality of a person may induce a positive predisposition towards every aspect of that person.

overall impressions if a person impacts your evaluations of that persons specific traits

+ physical attractivness steryotype = ppl likely to rate attractive ppl more favourably for their personality traits and characteristice and less attractive ppl

Horn Effect

its the oppisite Ugly = do crime and less favorably in personality traits and characteristics

negative predisposition in every aspect of that person

Question 24

Deffendant Characteristics

Atractivness ev

Abwender and Hough 2001 +

Answer 24

Abwender and Hough 2001

207 ppts, 129 f 78m

Judge via questionaire the guilt + recomended sentence of imaginary female drunk driver who killed a pedestrian

male = longer sentences for attractive

female = longer for unatractive

Shows how attractiveness affects symptoms length recommendations and therefore jury decision making meaning that abwender and hough 2001 is supporting evidence for this

Question 25

Deffendant Characteristics

Attractivness ev

Efran 1974 + ☆

Answer 25

Efran 1974

Conducted a survey and experiment

Gave the survey to college students

and found that 79% said that a jury’s decision should be based on character and previous history and

93% of them said the physical appearance should not influence a jury decision

the experiment then looked at whether the attractive defendants would be rated more positively

it was found that those who were attractive were rated as guilty but with less certainly

meaning that doubt was created

this doubt shows the Halo effect in action showing how it could be possible for the decision to be swayed and for attractivness to have an effect on jury decision making

Meaning that Efran 1974 is evidence that supports attractiveness having an effect on jury decision making is doubt in decision was created due to it

Question 26

Deffendant Characteristics

atract ev

Taylor and Butcher 2007 + ☆

Answer 26

Taylor and Butcher 2007

Mock jury study that looked at reaction to defendants attractiveness in the UK

96 participants 48 white 48 black

they were given a fictitious right up for mugging with a photograph of the defender attached to it

research found the jurors were more likely to find the less attractive defendants guilty than the attractive ones

They find that attractive white defendants are less likely to have a guilty verdict

and unattractive black defendants were likely to get a guilty verdict and harsher sentences

showing how attractiveness and race affects jury decision making and that taylor and butcher’s research supports this

Question 27

Deffendant Characteristics

atrac ev

Schvey et al 2013 +

Answer 27

Schvey et al 2013

Looked at the gender of the defendant

but a part of the study also focused on the effect of body weight

and it was found that obese females were judging more harshed by males

and we know that weight is sometimes how attractiveness is judged

this means that schvey’s research supports the idea that attractiveness affects jury decision making

as Obeese is sometimes seen as unatractive
and obese females were judged more harshley by males

showing how attractivness affectd JDM (jury decsion making)

Question 28

Deffendant Characteristics

Sigall ans Obstrove 1975 weakness -

Answer 28

Sigall and obstrove 1975

found no difference in fraud conviction between the unatractive and control condtotions (both avg 4.35 yrs convicted)

therefore opposing the Horn affect that Unatractivness affects Conviction rates and impressions and predisposition of the aspects of that person

as it shows some Atractivness dosnt affect all types of crime equaly

and the fact that atractive was found to be higher in faud (5.45 years)

sugest that attractivness dosnt always reduce conviction chance and it is likely that the type of crime (context) is part of attractivness bias in JUry decision making

meaning Sigall and Obstrobe 1975 opposes attractivness affecting JDM by sugesting that its context dependant and not just Pretty = no crime and ugly = crime

Question 29

Deffendant Characteristics

alt

Story order

Answer 29

Story order

Where evidence and Witnesses According chronological order of the events unfold in the crime

This means that due to the serial position effect that more recent chronological evidence will be remembered more than earlier chronological evidence by the jury

possibly affecting jury decision-making

Question 30

Deffendant Characteristics

alt

Witness order

Answer 30

Witness order

Where the best witness is presented first or last to take advantage of primacy/recency effects

Meaning that the best and most reliable witness is more likely to be remembered by the jury

than if they were presented in the middle of the trial

meaning The Witness has a greater impact on jury decision making

Question 31

Deffendant Characteristics

Serial position effect (Witness order explain)

murdock 1962

Answer 31

According to Murdock 1962 we tend to recall words that are at the start of a list

better than words at the end or in the middle this is called the serial position effect

Start: primacy effect: the first things that are heard from the list are repeated a lot therefore enter the long-term memory

End: recency effect: the item last in the list is still in the short-term memory and therefore is more likely to be remembered

middle:

only the things left at the end will remain in the short-term memory

and the things at the Beginning will enter the long-term memory

meaning anything in the middle is forgotten

due to the repetition of the first things that were heard for them to enter the long-term memory

everything in the middle of the list will be displaced

Question 32

Deffendant Characteristics

serial position effect

Glanzer and Cunitz 1966 + ☆

Answer 32

Glanzer and Cunitz 1966

Found that the primacy and recency effect occured

and discovered that subjects forgetting the information in the middle

this suggests that jurors will recall the prosecution statement (start)

and the judges summaring up of the evidence (end)

but not necessarily the defenses speech (middle)

therefore demonstrating how Ganzler and Cunitz 1966 supports the serial positions affects on jury decision making

Question 33

Deffendant Characteristics

Serial position effect + story order +++ ☆

Pennington and hastie 1988 (and weaknesses)

Answer 33

Paddington and Hastie 1988

The investigated the way that information is presented in the court

and whether it is best present all the information in chronological order story order

or the benefit of primacy and recency effect (showing the Witnesses first and last)

Lab exp, mock trial

130 students (paid)

jurors listen to tape recording of a stimulus trial based on a real case

they responded to written qs ans had to reach a verdict on guilt

and rate their confidence on their decision

info was either in Witness order or stroy order

Story order was significantly more effective than witness order

and more jurors confident of defence and prosecution in story order

Concluded the order that evidence is presented to the jurors has an effect on JDM (so pennington and Hastie 1988 support it)

and that Story order has a more persuasive effect

and thus affects JDM more so than Witness Effects

But Mock jury and Tape recording so less pressure to get it right and less emotional atmosphere than in real court so more able to clearly analyse evidence leading to the study having Low eco due to atmosphere and low Mundane realism due to evidence in real cases not exclusivly being tape recordings

Question 34

Deffendant Characteristics

Gender

Why?

Answer 34

• Females seen as more beleivable than male deffendants

• Steryotypes (males = comit violent crimes so more likley to be convicted as such, same with females and crimes i.e fraud or shoplifting or evade tv licence)

• Type if Sentence can be impaced by gender (male seen as more violent so longer sentence than ‘peacfull’ female)

• IF SEEN TO VIOLATE YOUR GENDER ROLE (violent females or tv licence evading males) THEN IT COULD INFLUENCE A GUILTY VERDICT

Question 35

Deffendant Characteristics

gender

Umukoro and Egwuonu 2013+

Answer 35

Umukoror and Egwuonu 2013

found that sex and attractivness of defender affected the severity if the sentencing by 48 mock judges

(therefore affecting jury decison making meaning Umukoro and Wgwuonu support genders affect on JDM)

Question 36

Deffendant Characteristics

gender

Thomas et al 2011+ ☆

Answer 36

Thomas et al 2011

24 participants at Bournemouth University

organized into one of four groups

participants were presented with two murders/manslaughter cases

Participants judge male defendants more harshly 23% guilty of murder

compared to 20% of female defendants that were guilty of murder

female defendants were evaluated more leniently by the jury than male defendants

showing how gender can affect JDM meaning that Thomas et al 2011 therefore supports this

Question 37

Deffendant Characteristics

gender

Blais and Forth 2014 - ☆

Answer 37

Blais and Forth 2014

Found that there was no effect of the defendant gender on 247 Mock jurors decisions about:

credibility, Verdict, recidivism, violent likelihood, treatment amendability, and sentence recommendations

Therefore meaning that Blais and Forth 2014 is evidence opposing the idea of gender has been affect on jury decision making

as they found gender had no effect on the jury’s decisions