Factors Affecting Jury Decision Making: Deffendant Characteristics Flashcards
Deffendant Characteristics
What are they?????
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
Deffendant Characteristics
Racial bias
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
Deffendant Characteristics
Race, evidence
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
Deffendant Characteristics
Race Evidence
Mitchell et al 2005 +
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
Deffendant Characteristics
Race evidence
Austin and Allen 2000 +
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
Deffendant Characteristics
Race Evidence
Baldus et al 2002 +
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
Deffendant Characteristics
Race Evidence
Williams and Holcomb 2001 - ☆
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
Deffendant Characteristics
Race evidence
Poulson 1990 - ☆
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
Deffendant Characteristics
Race Evidence
Sweeny and Haney 1992 +
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.
Deffendant Characteristics
Race evidence
Mazzella and Feingold 1994 -
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
Deffendant Characteristics
Race evidence
Thomas 2010 - ☆
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.
Deffendant Characteristics
issue with american jury studies
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
Deffendant Characteristics
Accents
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
Deffendant Characteristics
Accents evidence
Dixon et al 2002 + ☆
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
Deffendant Characteristics
Accent evidence
Mahoney and Dixon 1997 + ☆
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
Deffendant Characteristics
Accents ev
Mahoney and Dixon 1997 weaknesses ☆
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
Deffendant Characteristics
accent
combating it
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
Deffendant Characteristics
attractivness
why affect?
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
Deffendant Characteristics
Attractivness bias
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
Deffendant Characteristics
attractivness
example in films
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
Deffendant Characteristics
Atractiveness evidence
Sigall and Obstrove 1975 + ☆
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
Deffendant Characteristics
Atractivness evidence
Verr 1978 +
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
Deffendant Characteristics
Attractivness
Halo and Horn effect
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
Deffendant Characteristics
Atractivness ev
Abwender and Hough 2001 +
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
Deffendant Characteristics
Attractivness ev
Efran 1974 + ☆
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
Deffendant Characteristics
atract ev
Taylor and Butcher 2007 + ☆
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
Deffendant Characteristics
atrac ev
Schvey et al 2013 +
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)
Deffendant Characteristics
Sigall ans Obstrove 1975 weakness -
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
Deffendant Characteristics
alt
Story order
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
Deffendant Characteristics
alt
Witness order
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
Deffendant Characteristics
Serial position effect (Witness order explain)
murdock 1962
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
Deffendant Characteristics
serial position effect
Glanzer and Cunitz 1966 + ☆
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
Deffendant Characteristics
Serial position effect + story order +++ ☆
Pennington and hastie 1988 (and weaknesses)
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
Deffendant Characteristics
Gender
Why?
• 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
Deffendant Characteristics
gender
Umukoro and Egwuonu 2013+
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)
Deffendant Characteristics
gender
Thomas et al 2011+ ☆
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
Deffendant Characteristics
gender
Blais and Forth 2014 - ☆
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
