Class Notes (838,454)
Canada (510,888)
Psychology (5,220)
PSYCH 3CC3 (101)
Lecture

Jury Psychology.docx

8 Pages
93 Views
Unlock Document

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

Description
Jury Psychology - Jury selection – mostly in the US History – relatively new (40 years) - 1971 trial of Herrisburg Seven o group (Phillip and Daniel Berrigan) charged by FBI with conspiring to kidnap Henry Kissinger o trial held in a very conservative city o sociology Jay Schulman helped defense in jury selection  phone interviews – tried to determine what people would be more favourable to defense/who should be rejected o result = hung jury with 10 for acquittal. Defendants never retried - most jury selection is for civil trials (not criminal) o ie. Cases where lots of money is at stake Advantages of jury research in civil trials: - Discloses the questions jurors want asked in the discovery (then they can be included in defense) - Identifies problems in the case early, so you will have time to fix them - Removes your blinders in time to see the finish line (indicates how jurors see the case) - Arms your side for mediation – prepare defense for eventual mediation - Provides a range of realistic damage values - Provides guidance on the graphics to be used – graphics to simplify complicated aspects of the case o Well constructed graphics are key to winning almost any type of case OJ Simpson Trial - Jo-Ellen Demetrius conducted extensive pre-trial research to determine what type of people should be included in the jury - Determined that black women had overwhelming support for OJ and disliked the prosecutor Marcia Clark - Final jury consisted 8/12 black women – and he won the case Methods - Mock Juries o Presented with trial evidence before trial and their judgments noted o Widely used  most common way to see how jury acts - Shadow juries (after trial starts) o Sit in the courtroom during the trial and brief their clients at the end of the day o Listening to and evaluating evidence – can identify problems - Community surveys o To identify undesirable jurors – demographics and beliefs o preparation for voir dire - focus groups Juror demographic characteristics and criminal verdicts - Occupation - Socioecomonic status (income, education) - Education - Age - Gender - Race-ethnicity - Religion - RESULT : nothing has clear relationship (which is good) Juror personality factors and verdicts – many do have an impact on jury verdicts - Authoritarianism o Desire for order, leadership, structure o Power and accuracy of government - Several ways to test it o California F-scale (F=fascism) o Altemeyer Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (RWA)  Order, structure, discipline - Authoritarians o More ready to convict; bias towards government/prosecution side o Have better recall for prosecution that for defense evidence o Recommend longer sentences o More punitive towards defendants of low status - Relation between authoritarianism and verdicts are very small. Effect stronger among actual jurors than among student mock jurors - Juror Bias Scale o Rate 22 statements on a 5 point scale from strongly agree-strongly disagree 1) Probability of Commission 2) Reasonable doubt (understanding)  high = less likely to convict - you should not convict someone if there is reasonable doubt o the answers of these scales are correlated (0.3) – shows that we are basically measuring the same thing o likely to lead to prosecution side - Probability of Commission it composed of two factors: o Confidence in Legal System (justice – the government makes no mistakes) o Cynicism towards criminal justice system (against certainty of government) - Dogmatism o not much different from authoritarianism; more general and characterized by inflexibility o not the same connection with prejudice; authoritarianism has lots of prejudice and religious bias o high in dogmatism = more likely to convict and more likely to be punitive (heavier sentences)  swayed by defense (same result as authoritarianism) - Locus of Control; situation vs disposition  which is responsible? o External locus of control believe that situational factors outside the individual’s control are largely responsible for events o Internal locus of control believe they control their own destiny o Sosi (1974) – drunk driving case. Internals = harsher punishments (viewed defendant as more responsible). No relation between locus of control and perceived guilt o Internals attribute more responsibility to defendants when actions were ambiguous and injury t others was high o No difference when defendant clearly at fault, or when injuries were not severe - Just World Beliefs o People generally get what they deserve  Ie. They think victims of rape are themselves responsible for the attack o Mock homicide cases – high = less favorable impression of defendant, recommend harsher sentences. o Effect stronger in women o Victims of high moral character held as less responsible than individuals of questionable moral character  Ie. Sex trade workers who are raped are held more responsible than a nun who Is raped Pretrial Publicity – US only Research - suggests that defendants described in prejudicial manner in 27% of stories examined (negative light on defendant) o mostly about subject’s character o then about prior arrest/conviction information  not even relevant to guilt or innocence o most common source of information was law enforcement officers and prosecutors (legal system itself) Experimental studies - lower in ecological validity but are more detailed - when more negative aspects were given about a defendant, they were more likely to be judged as guilty - two types of pretrial publicity examined o Factual publicity – incriminating information that suggested guilt about defendant o Emotional publicity – no explicitly incriminating information but aroused negative emotions o Neither instructions nor deliberations reduced impacts of either form of publicity  No deliberation, no difference  Difference seen only after deliberation was reached o Deliberation suggested that prejudicial publicity can increase or decrease the persuasibility of conviction advocates o Several days between exposure to publicity and viewing the trial was a remedy (reduced impact) for factual publicity but not emotional o Juries exposed to pretrial publicity:  More likely to give guilty verdict than those without exposure  High factual content = more likely to give guilty verdict when there was no delay between receiving information and the trial  Low factual content = more likely to give guilty verdict when there was delay between receiving information and the trial - even when one is told to ignore pretrial publicity, its hard to - participants exposed to negative PTP are more likely to judge defendants guilty compared to people exposed to less or no PTP - larger effects in studies using members of potential jury pool rather than students (because students are better at judging facts) - larger effects in studies using real PTP o the more serious the case, the more effect PTP had - larger effects in studies with longer delay between exposure and verdict time Jury Decision Making Orientation - verdict driven o 30% of injuries – start with straw poll but may not look at all the evidence (only what they believe is relevant) - evidence driven o begin by focusing on evidence. o What does each piece of evidence mean? o Slower at reaching conclusion but more rigorous than verdict driven Open Conflict - normative influence o jurors maintain their private beliefs, but change their vote to go along with others o persuaded to change vote – conformity - informational influence o jurors internalize the arguments and change their mind and their verdicts Reconciliation - attempts to make sure that everyone is satisfied Mathematical Models - Bayesian Probability model – dominant o 3 general phases 1) Predetermined notion about guilt/innocence 2) Presentation of Evidence – combine new info with existing beliefs - multiplicity 3) End with belief/probability a. Meter stops if probability reaches 1 or 0 – no further change o Conviction criteria  how high does percentage have to be to judge as guilty? o Utility evaluation – judge’s instructions, s
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