Psychology of the Jury Flashcards
The Jury
Definitions
More than an instrument of justice it is the lamp that shows that Freedom lives.
A better instrument could scarcely be imagined for achieving uncertainty, capriciousness, lack of uniformity, disregard of former decisions - utter unpredicatability.
Jury Facts
18-75 years old
Electoral register
Include judiciary members
12 good men & true…
effects for 6-person juries
Input of psych to jury system.
Factors to consider:
social psych
types of case
Studying Jury Processes
Problems: hampered by the law
Kalven & Zeisel (1966)
Different Methods:
1) archival research
2) questionnaire surveys
3) post-trial juror interviews
4) books by ex-jurors
5) mock jury trials
6) shadow jury trials
Questionnaire Surveys
How and Why?
- currently almost impossible in UK but…
- Zander & Henderson (1993)
- Thomas (2007/2010)
Who?
- Kalven & Zeisel 1966
- Asked jurors seemed to have decided on verdict before deliberation
- findings flawed:
- represented only 3% of jury trials
- changed wording of questionnaire halfway through
Questionnaire Surveys
Advantages & Disadvantages
Valuable insights into jury process
Process with questionnaires
British studies e.g.
- McCabe & Purves (1972b)
12.5% of perverse acquittals
Post-Trial Juror Interviews
Where?
USA but generally not UK
Limitations
- social desirability
- memory unreliability
- hindsight bias
Advantages
e.g. Doob (1977) judicial instructions
97% said judicial instructions
25% couldn’t define ‘burden of proof’
Mock Jury Trials
Most common method
Basic methodology
Some methodological issues have been identified:
e.g.
- Bornstein (1999)
Looks at samples of mock jurors & trial medium
- Diamond (1997)
Looks at the extent to which jury simulations actually reflect jury decision-making.
Mock Jury Trials
Issues of Validity
Research Setting Trial Medium Mock Juror Sample Trial Elements Measures Consequences
Mock Jury Trials
Conclusions
More realistic simulations?
- But Diamond (1997) - Stage I vs Stage II testing
More areas need testing?
- Juries as opposed to jurors
Components for inclusion
- Combination of more elemets
Evidence needs to be accepted by courts
Shadow Jury Trials
How?
Parallel juries when court in session
Why?
Subjected same stimulus as real jury.
Closest can get to real jury.
Who?
McCabe & Purves (1974)
60% agree / 20% disagree / 20% hung
Problems?
Lack of consequences
Policy Implications
Do the court accept the findings?
NO e.g. Rehnquist (1986)
- tentative fragmentary evidence
- did not involve actual jurors
- failed to simulate deliberations
YES
- changes in way jury instructions given
- procedural changes re: conduct of trial (e.g. note-taking)
Factors Affecting Jury Decision Making
- evidential factors
- extralegal factors
- categories of research:
jury research
juror research
Juror Research - Physical Attractiveness
Folklore or something more?
Methodology & Results
Efran (1974) - methodology (Vignette - type of case) - Effect for attractiveness: Less certainty of guilt Milder punishment But... finding only for males!
Juror Research - Physical Attractiveness
Studies
Sigall & Ostrove (1975)
- methodology (no measure of perception of guilt: # years imprisonment!)
- type of crime interacts with attractiveness, but generally misreported!
Stewart (1980, 1985)
- courtroom observational studies
- attractiveness correlated significantly and negativelty with severity of punishment
Juror Research - Physical Attractiveness
Meta-analysis 25 studies
Attarctiveness played a part in guilt assignment, but effect size small.
Less punishment for ‘attractives’, but again effect size small.
e. g. robbery, rape but not negligent homicide
- no effect of attractiveness for victim
