Class Notes (836,580)
Canada (509,856)
Psychology (5,217)
PSYCH 3CC3 (101)
Lecture

jury psychology.docx

15 Pages
131 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Psychology
Course
PSYCH 3CC3
Professor
Richard B Day
Semester
Fall

Description
October 17 , 2013 Psych 3CC3: Forensic Psychology Jury Psychology Jury Psychology - Jury selection: field engaged in in the United States mostly - Pretrial publicity: issue in the U.S. only  In Canada the Judge can ban the publication of court cases - Jury decision-making  Decision-making models  Evaluation of evidence  Other factors - Jury instructions  How well are they understood?  Can comprehension be improved? Harrisburg Seven (1972) - Jury selection is relatively new - Dates back to 40 years ago during the Nixon administration - Harrisburg seven trial of 1972:  Government decided to prosecute seven war protesters  Phillip and Daniel Berrigan - Conspiracy to destroy draft board records - Conspiracy to kidnap Henry Kissinger - Conspiracy to bomb D.C. heating tunnels - Chose Harrisburg Pennsylvania as it was a conservative district and were favourable towards the Vietnam war - Level the playing field by selecting the jury - Bruce Sales - Telephone interviews to those who were eligible - Face-to-face interviews - Detailed questions about individuals beliefs about government, etc. - Determine the kinds of people who are going to have attitudes more favourable to the defence - Who should be selected and who should be rejected from the jury - Indicate the questions which would discriminate those to be selected - Final result was a hung jury: only 2 for conviction - Jay Schulman lead this team, and founded the Natoinal Jury Project National Jury Project - Purpose to help attorneys make appropriate boidere decisions about who should be on the jury - Most jury selection is in civil trials when there is a lot of money at stake - More about the kind of arguments to be presented to the jury Decision Quest - Donald Vinson - Jury selection O.J. Simpson Case - Jury selection processes were put in place lead by Jo-Ellen Demetrius - O.J. support – black women - Dislike Clark (prosecuting attorney)– black women - Best jurors to acquit:  Young  Blue-collar  Black women  Less educated  Low SES - Final jury:  1 black man  2 white men  1 Latino man  8 black women Advantages of Jury Research - Targeted towards commercial clients in civil trials 1. Shows questions jurors want answered  Undertake jury research very early as they know what will happen  Investigating what sort of case they should present  Running through mock trials  Interview the jurors during various stages to see what is confusing them and what questions they may still have 2. Early identification of problems in case  Where are the jurors reaching conclusions? 3. Indicates how jurors see the case  What are the main issues  How do they see the defendants? 4. Prepares the ground for mediation  What do the jurors think would be fair compensation? 5. Provides realistic damage assessments 6. Indicates graphics needed Jury Research Methods 1. Mock juries  Used widely by jury selection firms  Presented with trial evidence beforehand; verdicts noted  Most common methodology 2. Shadow juries  Sit in court each day, provide feedback to attorneys  Used in consultation firms not academic research 3. Community surveys  Identify undesirable jurors  Sample group of individuals from community in which trial is taking place ad identify those who would prejudice or for the client  Preparation for the bouidir Juror Demographics and Verdicts 1. Socioeconomic status (SES)  Income and education  Mixed results – not clear relationship  High SES are more likely to convict; other studies find they are more likely to convict  May be certain types of trials, but the research is not well enough developed  Trial type interaction: some trial types we do see an effect of SES  For now there is no general effect 2. Education  Mixed results – no clear relationship 3. Age, Gender  Mixed results – no clear relationship  Women more likely to convict in rape trials then men?  Ideally we do not want any of these variables to effect the jury 4. Race-ethnicity, religion  Mixed results – no clear relationship  Jurors weight the facts and reach, in most cases, a reasonable conclusion Jurors Personality and Verdicts 1. Authoritarianism  F-scale (fascism scale)  Right-wing authoritarianism scale (RWA)  Strong belief in the necessity for order, structure and leader ship in a culture  Belief in power of government to control things  Belief in accuracy of government  Strong in communist systems  Today more common among conservative republicans F-Scale - 6-point scale; strongly agree to strongly disagree RWA Scale - Agree or disagree to statements Authoritarianism and Verdicts - More ready to convict – bias towards the government - Better recall of prosecution than defense evidence – selectively recall evidence - Recommended longer sentences - More punitive toward low-status defendants (people who come from minority groups) - Prejudice towards certain ethnic or religious groups - Effect small – larger in real than mock juries Juror Bias Scale - 22 statements, 5-point scale. Two subscales: 1. Probability of commission:  Extent towards the likelihood of leaning to the prosecusion side  “A suspect who runs form the police most probably committed the crime.”  “Generally the police only make an arrest when they are sure about who committed the crime.” 2. Reasonable doubt  “If a majority of the evidence – but not all of it – suggests the defendant committed the crime, then the jury should vote not guilty.”  “Circumstantial evidence is too weak to use in court” - Kassin and Wrightsman (1983): r = .30 between scale scores and verdicts (~10 variance)  Subscales are not completely independent of each other - Penrod and Cutler (1987): r=.60 between subscale scores – what is being measured? - Critics: we are measuring the same thing - Myers & Lecci (1998): probability of commission scale measures two things:  Confidence in the justice system  Cynicism towards some aspect of the justice system - People high in reasonable doubt are less likely to convict - High in probability of commission more likely to convict Juror Personality and Verdicts 2. Dogmatism  Not correlated with racial, prejudice, whereas authoritarianism is  Belief in necessity for strong government control  Hugh = more likely to convict  High = more punitive after conviction  But not all studies find this  Majority of the literature note this findings 3. Locus of control: internal vs. external  Is the situation responsible for what has happened or is the individuals disposition (personality, desires) responsible for what has happened  Personal blame  High belief in internal locus of control believe that individuals are responsible for their actions  High belied in external locus of control believe that the situation is responsible for the actions committed by the individuals  Rotter (1996): Internal-external locus of control scale  External: “[In world affairs], most of us are the victims of forces we can neither understand nor control.”  Internal: “By taking an active part in political and social affairs, the people can control world events.”  External: “Many of the unhappy things in people’s live are due to bad luck.”  Internal: “peoples misfortunes arise from the mistakes they make.”  Sosi (1974): Drunk driving case  Internals: o Recommended harsher punishment o View defendant as more responsible o No relation between locus of control and perceived guilt o When they know the individual is guilty they place more responsibility on the individual  Phares & Wilson (1972): Auto accident case  Internals: o Defendant more responsible when actions ambiguous and injuries high o No difference when defendant clearly at fault, or injuries less severe o External locus control see the defendant as guilty when there is no ambiguity 4. Just world beliefs: high vs. low  Belief that people get what they deserve  Justice always prevails  Gerbassi et al (1977): real/mock homicide cases  High JW: o Using real, mock cases, simulations o Less favorable impression of defendant o Recommended harsher punishment o Effect stronger in women  Zuckerman & Gerbassi (1975): mock rape case  High JW: o Victim held more responsible o Victims of high moral character less responsible than those of questionable moral character Pretrial Publicity (PTP) - Concerned mostly with negative pretrial publicity towards the defendant - Imrich et al (1995): 8-weeks; 14 US papers  27% of stories prejudicial to defendant  Most about character, guilt  Info mostly from law officiers, prsecuters  History of substance abuse? Prior crime? Not relevant to the current case - Tans & Chafee (1966): mock trials  Crime seriousness  Favourable/unfavourable DA statements  Suspect confession or denial  Defendant held or released  More elements = higher probability of guilty verdict  Summative effect: more kinds of negative publicity the greater the likelihood of a guilty verdict Kramer, Kerr & Carroll (1990) - Compared factual vs. emotional PTP with or without delay (~12 days) before trial - Emotional had little to do with the defendants involvement  Hit and run incident in which a girl was killed  Car and description was the description of the car belonging to the defendant  Passenger matched description of defendant - Pre-deliberation. No verdict differences between groups - PTP increases probability of conviction - Conviction 20% higher with emotional than factual PTP; even though he was not the driver of the car - PTP – trial delay reduces effect of factual PTP - PTP – trial delay increases effect of emotional PTP - Instructions to ignore had no effect on PTP - Did not ask jurors about whether or not they remembered the PTP - PTP increases persuability of ‘acquitters’ or increases persuasiveness of ‘convicters’ – or both  After deliberation there is an effect of PTP  Does not show up before deliberation - High emotion: higher conviction and hung juries - High factual: hung no difference between convictions Steblay et al (1999) - Meta-analysis of 23 PTP studies - Negative PTP increases probability of conviction - German research: difficulties making distinction between sources of information - Effects greater with jury pool members than students (students are better at basing their decisions on facts) - Larger effects with real PTP - Larger effects with murder, sexual abuse, drug cases (the more serious the case the more negative PTP) - Larger effects when longer PTP – verdict delay (the longer the delay the greater the PTP effect) October 22 , 2013 Juror Decision Making - Orientation  Elect foreman  Discuss procedures  Raise general trial issues  Verdict Driven (30%)  Take poll, assess evidence for either side  Tend to be quick in making a decision  Do not consider all of the evidence  Evidence driven (70%)  Look at evidence relative to different verdicts, then take poll  Many possible verdicts - Open conflict  Normative influence  Jurors keep private opinion, but vote with the group to maintain harmony  Want to facilitate the work of the jury  Informational influence  Jurors change minds based on arguments, evidence - Reconciliation  Making sure everyone is content with the verdict - Is there a formula which describes how jurors change their beliefs:  Phase I: predetermined belief in guilt or innocence  Phase II: resentation of evidence: introduction of math, what is the model that best describes the way in which jurors accumulate evidence in order to reach a verdict?  Phase III: conclusions of probability to innocence relative to criteria for judgment. Comparison between current belief of guilt with the standard Bayesian Model of Juror Decision Making - Adjusting prior probabilities on the basis of new information - Initially begin with no presumptions of innocence - Prior probability (P prior  Instructions re presumption of innocence  Shaped by jurors attitudes  Justice system  Defendants - New Evidence item  Witnesses  Exhibits  Arguments - Probability updating  (Pprior PE/G)/P evidence Ppost  Reaching 1 or 0, there will be no further change – no other piece of evidence will change belief - Conviction Criterion  P*  Given that our belief is a certain probabili
More Less

Related notes for PSYCH 3CC3

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit