Week 10 Flashcards
Factors that can bias jury
Pretrial publicity:
- neg. publicity -> guilty
- > change of venue (more difficult today)
Defendant characteristics:
- how badly def. has already suffered from crime
- > more lenient if badly injured (e.g., victim injured them)
- moral character of def. & vic.
- > more lenient if drug dealer robs another
- > can also be related to ethnicity
Inadmissible evidence:
-jurors consider whether it’s fair to hear evidence
Complex evidence:
-credentials of expert witness become imp. when evidence is complex
Integrating evidence
Mathematically based
- assign each piece of evidence a WEIGHT
- > e.g., DNA strong, so 80%; bad video light, so 5%
- each weight REFLECTS imp., credibility of witness, reliability of evidence, etc.
- guilty verdict if total exceeds standard of proof (e.g., beyond reasonable doubt)
Explanation based
- story model
- > assimilation of evidence into a coherent narrative
- > comprehension of judge’s instructions regarding legal verdict alternatives
Jury size
U.S. Supreme - min. 6 req. to be fair (Williams v. FL; Ballew v. Georgia)
12 better than 6
- deliberate longer
- recall evidence more accurately
- generally more arguments
- more representative
- less likely to lead to conformity pressures
Asch Experiment
Visual perception task about conformity
Experimental: 37% conformed
Control: ~99% accurate
Conformity reduced when
-dissenter (conform 1/4 as often)
Reasons for conformity
Normative influence
- desire for acceptance (want to be liked)
- increase when responding in public
Informational influence
- accept evidence of others (want to be right)
- increase: feel incompetent, difficult task, care about being right
Jury conformity
Initial (11 G; 1 NG) – Verdict (92% G; 8% hung)
Initial (10 G; 2 NG) – Verdict (64.7% F; 35.3% hung)
Decision Rule
27 states req. unanimity in ALL types of decisions
44 req. unanimity in FELONY trials
50 req. unanimity in CAPITAL MURDER trials
*Unanimity req. if using SIX person jury
Increased mistrial rates
-hard to get all on same page
Are judges more impartial than juries?
Judges NO better at ignoring inadmissible evidence
Both groups believe judges would be better
Jurors with prior experience
MORE likely to convict
Jury-judge agreement
~74% (Heuer & Penrod, 1994)
Differences found in CLOSE cases
Juries more LENIENT
-judges see more criminals -> judge harder
Recidivism
Tendency to relapse to prior condition/mode of behavior
-esp. criminal behavior
Wish to DECREASE
-one attempt through punishment
Thorndike’s “Law of Effect”
Response followed by satisfying -> more likely occur again
Resp. followed by annoying (e.g., punishment) -> less likely
Not very effective, enforcement is the problem
- inconsistent
- long delay behavior -> consequence
- ass. between behavior punishment & punisher
- may produce aggressive behavior
- does NOT specify correct behavior
- punished behavior likely to reappear after consequences withdrawn (Skinner)
Types of punishment
Prison Death Alternatives to prison -restitution (pay back through $ or labor) -"shock incarceration" -parole -house arrest -residential community correction centers
Denmark research on punishment and recidivism (Brennan & Mednick, 1994)
Results:
Imposing some sanctions REDUCED rates for future # criminal arrests
-type/severity of sanction did NOT matter
Continuous reduced MORE than intermittent sanctions
HIGHER prop. of sanctions received for past arrests, LOWER rates of future arrests
Prison
Cost (older, higher cost)
- avg. $24,000/ prisoner per yr
- over 55, avg. $80,000/ prisoner per yr
Most return to society
- 600,000 from federal and state per year
- > rehabilitation prog. may lower cost
Effectiveness of prison
Prison -> MORE likely to recidivate
Petersilia, Turner, & Peterson (1986)
- Groups matched (age, crime, prior record)
- one: prison sentence – other: probation (tracked for 3 yrs)
- time served INCREASED recidivism
Schlager & Robins (2008)
- served entire - MORE likely reconvicted & reincarcerated in contrast to those release early
- > problem: WHY they were released early (e.g., good behavior)
Effectiveness of shock incarceration
Backfire
-sign. more likely to become repeat offenders than those put on probation (maybe because leave with negative view of the system)
More effective:
-therapy, education, drug treatment, follow-up supervision
Summary
Some sanction better than nothing
Prison may INCREASE recidivism rates
-switch to lower cost penalties that achieve better results
->recidivism rate after serving time: 67%
->recidivism rate after probation: 43% (1/3 cost of prison)
->limitation: ONLY for LESS severe crimes
Jurors & capital punishment
Voir Dire
~30-40% excluded based on unwillingness to vote for death penalty in capital murder
-tend to be female, African American, & politically liberal
Imp. death penalty decisions
Furman v. Georgia (1972)
CA Supreme Court- death penalty cruel and unusual (applied at random)
Gregg v. Georgia (1977) Leg. re-enacts death penalty -two-phase (bifurcated) system 1. guilty phase 2. penalty phase (sentencing)
Penalty phase
Juror to consider aggravating & mitigating factors
Aggravating factors
-increase WRONGFULNESS of the action (support death)
Mitigating factors
- reduce BLAMEWORTHINESS (support line imprisonment)
- > less weight
Freq. misunderstood (e.g., believe unless death, parole eligible)
Deterrence & death penalty
States w/ death penalty have slightly HIGHER murder rates than w/o
Brutalization effect
- executions stimulate small INCREASE in murders (1 - 4)
- 60 yrs; 70 studies
Recidivism:
Marquart & Sorensen (1989)
death row after sentences dismissed (Furman v. Georgia)
~1% killed again
Problems w/ deterrence theory (Constanzo & Krauss, 2012)
- crimes of PASSION (no weight of costs/benefits)
- believe won’t be put to death (~1% are)
- not clear if death more of deterrent than life imprisonment
- Nagin & Pepper (2012)
- evidence is INCONCLUSIVE
Costs & death penalty
Lifetime incarceration for one
~$750,000 - 1.1 mill.
Single death-penalty case
Texas: $2.3 mill
FL: $3.2 mill
B/c automatic appeals process
CA $63.3 mill. annually to have death row
-system cost with max. penalty lifetime incarceration $11.5 mill. annually
Mistakes & death penalty
1973-1995
68% death sentences reversed b/c serious errors at trial
-incompetent defense (37%)
-faulty or misleading instructions (20%)
-prosecutorial misconduct (19%)
-> suppression of evidence, intimidation of witness
Radelet, Bedau, & Putnam (1992)
Examined death penalty cases back to 1990
-416 cases innocent (BUT ground-truth problem)
-23 of were actually executed
Death penalty info. center (2012)
Since 1977, 140 released from death row b/c of innocence
Troy Davis
Convicted for murdering police officer 1989
Maintained innocence
-7 of 9 recanted testimony (police coercion)
Executed 2011
Gary Graham
Only non circumstantial evidence:
one eyewitness ID (saw for few sec in dark parking lot)
Two witnesses would have testified NOT him, never called
Executed 2000
17 at time of crime
Racial disparities & death penalty
Bowers (1984); Baldus et al. (1998)
- Following arrest, B def. more likely than W to be:
- charged w/ capital murder
- convicted of capital murder - Following conviction, B more likely than W to be:
- sentenced to death (43% of current pop)
- actually executed
Interaction between race of victim and of def. is BEST predictor of death sentence
- B & W equally likely of becoming victims of aggravated murder
- > B convicted of killing W: 22% given sentence (more likely to be executed)
- > W convicted of killing B: 3% given sentence
Mentally ill & death penalty
Cruel & unusual to execute mentally ill
Ford v. Wainworth (1986)
- convicted of murder
- paranoid schizophrenic
- trans. to state mental institution (after receiving death sentence)
*Atkins v. Virginia (2002)
US Supreme Court – ban execution of mentally ill CHALLENGED
-cruel & unusual (8th Amend)
-determine? refers to typical IQ test, but up to states to decide how to define mental disabilities
—> Flynn effect - IQ test scores increase over time gain ~.3 per yr.
Juveniles & death penalty
Roper v. Simmons (2005):
US Supreme Court bans execution of juvi.
-juvi. at time of crime
-since 1973, 22 executed who were minors at the time
->court cited clear distinction between adolescence & adulthood at 18 yrs (PFC)
Increasingly, minors are tried as adults
Punishment of minors:
Graham v. FL (2010)
US Supreme Court – minors cannot be given life w/o parole EXCEPT in case of MURDER
Miller v. Alabama (2012)
US Supreme Court – rejects life w/o parole for ALL JUVI
Humane measures & death penalty
Lethal injection favored over hanging, firing, gas, electric
Current debates about above
Shortage of lethal injection drugs
- Europe stopped producing (don’t do death penalty, don’t want to support it)
- > current cocktails are experimental
Closure for victims & death penalty
Right to view executions
-most states allow victims or family members to attend (potential for closure)
Really depends on person as to whether truly closure
