# PSY328H5 Lecture Notes - Lecture 7: Mathematical Model, Henry Morgentaler, Social Proof

64 views5 pages
28 Feb 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Plan for Today
Methodology of jury studies
Jury decision making
Judicial instruction
Jury Deliberation
Jury Functions
To use the wisdom of 12 to reach a verdict
1.
To act as the conscience of the community
2.
To protect against out of date laws
3.
To increase knowledge of the justice system
4.
Methods of Study
Post trial interviews of juries
1.
Not in Canada (s. 649 C.C.C.)
Common in the U.S.
LaFree, Reskin, & Visher (1985)
Problems of retrospective accounts
May not appreciate or recognize factors that contributed to their verdict
Methods of Study
Archival Analysis
2.
(Avio, 1988)
Useful tool for research
High in external validity
Not in control of data collection (bias)
These are correlational studies and therefore you can’t infer causation.
Field studies
Go to courts and watch the challenge for cause occur
Show differences in court protocols
Correlational, observing how things happen and whats being done
Methods of Study
Jury simulations3.
(Douglas, Lyon, & Ogloff, 1997)
Graphic photographs vs autopsy photos
When jurors are exposed to gore photos they are more likely to convict
Ensure manipulated variable is responsible for effects
Brief, less complex
Verdicts are hypothetical - difference between real and mock
Mock jurors
Look for converging evidence.
Models of Jury Decision Making
1. Mathematical model (explanation-based)
“mental” calculations are performed by jurors to weigh the strength of each piece of
information and compare it to a decisional criteria for guilt.
Jurors weigh each piece of evidence and compare it to their criteria for guilt
Balance of probabilities
Models of Jury Decision Making
The Story Model2.
Pentington & Hastie (1986)
The jurors engage in active comprehensive processes to organize and interpret
evidence into a coherent whole or narrative story structure.
Jurors try to find the best fit between the story constructed and the verdict categories
provided by the judge.
The Story Model
Pentington & Hastie, 1988
Varied how trial evidence was presented, either witness by witness or in
chronological, event based order.
The easier it was to construct a story the more likely a verdict consistent with that
story would be rendered.
Judicial Instructions
Alfini & Sales, 1982
Were able to improve juror comprehension of judicial instructions by modifying the
language (psycholinguistic theory)
There has been an attempt to simplify language used by judges in Canada (no studies)
Rape Shield Law
R. v. Seaboyer
Exception to rape shield law
Judicial caution
Can use sexual history to weigh against victim’s credibility
Judicial Instructions
“Jurors will disregard the evidence.”
Hastings (1998)
s. 12 Canada Evidence Act – criminal record can be used to assess credibility
(Hans & Doob, 1976) – criminal record has little impact on credibility but does
improperly influence perceptions of guilt.
Judicial instructions do little to remedy this.
Judicial Instructions
Research consistently shows the ineffectiveness of judicial instructions to disregard
evidence later ruled to be inadmissible (Story model)
The “boomerang” effect
Jury Deliberations
Sequestering juries
Most final group verdicts reflect the initial verdict opinion majority - “majority rules”
Group Polarization
Leniency Bias
Normative vs. Informational influences
More people influenced by normative influence vs informational influence
Normative: celebrity endorsements, advertising
Informational: trying to sell a laptop, need information on the product
12 member juries
6 is more often unanimous than 12
Unanimous decisions
Jury Nullification
R. v. Morgentaler
1974 overturned aquittal and sentenced to prison (Quebec court of appeals)
1975 brought the Morgentaler amendment
We need to change the laws in canada regarding abortion and right to abortion
1983 Morgentaler aquitted again and Ont. Court of appeal reverses the verdict
Charged again in ontario for practicing abortions and is aquitted again
1988 Supreme court changes the laws
Mandates that the parliament should change the laws
Right to abortion in canada, legal
Harvey latimer
Euthanasia
Charged with 2nd degree murder of his daughter who has developmental
disorders and suffers in pain
At the time euthanasia is illegal, jury is empathetic
Wanted a constitutional exemption where he would only have 1 year to serve
and he would get parole
On appeal they restored the sentence to 10 years
The Psychology of the Jury -Lecture 7
Thursday, February 15, 2018
4:10 PM
Unlock document

This preview shows pages 1-2 of the document.
Unlock all 5 pages and 3 million more documents.

Plan for Today
Methodology of jury studies
Jury decision making
Judicial instruction
Jury Deliberation
Jury Functions
To use the wisdom of 12 to reach a verdict1.
To act as the conscience of the community2.
To protect against out of date laws3.
To increase knowledge of the justice system4.
Methods of Study
Post trial interviews of juries1.
Not in Canada (s. 649 C.C.C.)
Common in the U.S.
LaFree, Reskin, & Visher (1985)
Problems of retrospective accounts
May not appreciate or recognize factors that contributed to their verdict
Methods of Study
Archival Analysis
2.
(Avio, 1988)
Useful tool for research
High in external validity
Not in control of data collection (bias)
These are correlational studies and therefore you can’t infer causation.
Field studies
Go to courts and watch the challenge for cause occur
Show differences in court protocols
Correlational, observing how things happen and whats being done
Methods of Study
Jury simulations
3.
(Douglas, Lyon, & Ogloff, 1997)
Graphic photographs vs autopsy photos
When jurors are exposed to gore photos they are more likely to convict
Ensure manipulated variable is responsible for effects
Brief, less complex
Verdicts are hypothetical - difference between real and mock
Mock jurors
Look for converging evidence.
Models of Jury Decision Making
1.
Mathematical model (explanation-based)
“mental” calculations are performed by jurors to weigh the strength of each piece of
information and compare it to a decisional criteria for guilt.
Jurors weigh each piece of evidence and compare it to their criteria for guilt
Balance of probabilities
Models of Jury Decision Making
The Story Model2.
Pentington & Hastie (1986)
The jurors engage in active comprehensive processes to organize and interpret
evidence into a coherent whole or narrative story structure.
Jurors try to find the best fit between the story constructed and the verdict categories
provided by the judge.
The Story Model
Pentington & Hastie, 1988
Varied how trial evidence was presented, either witness by witness or in
chronological, event based order.
The easier it was to construct a story the more likely a verdict consistent with that
story would be rendered.
Judicial Instructions
Alfini & Sales, 1982
Were able to improve juror comprehension of judicial instructions by modifying the
language (psycholinguistic theory)
There has been an attempt to simplify language used by judges in Canada (no studies)
Rape Shield Law
R. v. Seaboyer
Exception to rape shield law
Judicial caution
Can use sexual history to weigh against victim’s credibility
Judicial Instructions
“Jurors will disregard the evidence.”
Hastings (1998)
s. 12 Canada Evidence Act – criminal record can be used to assess credibility
(Hans & Doob, 1976) – criminal record has little impact on credibility but does
improperly influence perceptions of guilt.
Judicial instructions do little to remedy this.
Judicial Instructions
Research consistently shows the ineffectiveness of judicial instructions to disregard
evidence later ruled to be inadmissible (Story model)
The “boomerang” effect
Jury Deliberations
Sequestering juries
Most final group verdicts reflect the initial verdict opinion majority - “majority rules”
Group Polarization
Leniency Bias
Normative vs. Informational influences
More people influenced by normative influence vs informational influence
Normative: celebrity endorsements, advertising
Informational: trying to sell a laptop, need information on the product
12 member juries
6 is more often unanimous than 12
Unanimous decisions
Jury Nullification
R. v. Morgentaler
1974 overturned aquittal and sentenced to prison (Quebec court of appeals)
1975 brought the Morgentaler amendment
We need to change the laws in canada regarding abortion and right to abortion
1983 Morgentaler aquitted again and Ont. Court of appeal reverses the verdict
Charged again in ontario for practicing abortions and is aquitted again
1988 Supreme court changes the laws
Mandates that the parliament should change the laws
Right to abortion in canada, legal
Harvey latimer
Euthanasia
Charged with 2nd degree murder of his daughter who has developmental
disorders and suffers in pain
At the time euthanasia is illegal, jury is empathetic
Wanted a constitutional exemption where he would only have 1 year to serve
and he would get parole
On appeal they restored the sentence to 10 years
The Psychology of the Jury -Lecture 7
Thursday, February 15, 2018 4:10 PM
Unlock document

This preview shows pages 1-2 of the document.
Unlock all 5 pages and 3 million more documents.

# Get access

\$10 USD/m
Billed \$120 USD annually
Homework Help
Class Notes
Textbook Notes