The effects of death qualification on jurors' predisposition to convict and on the quality of deliberation

This study provides a straightforward test of the proposition that people who are permitted to serve on juries in capital cases (death-qualified jurors) are more likely to convict a defendant than are people who are excluded from serving on capital juries due to their unwillingness to impose the death penalty (excludable jurors). A sample of 288 subjects classified as death-qualified or excludable under theWitherspoon standard watched a 2 1/2-hour videotape of a simulated homicide trial including the judge's instructions, and gave an initial verdict. Death-qualified subjects were significantly more likely than excludable subjects to vote guilty, both on the initial ballot and after an hour's deliberation in 12-person juries. Nine juries were composed entirely of death-qualified subjects (death-qualified juries), while 10 contained from 2 to 4 excludable subjects (mixed juries). On postdeliberation measures, with initial death-penalty attitudes controlled, subjects who had served on the mixed juries were generally more critical of the witnesses, less satisfied with their juries, and better able to remember the evidence than subjects from the death-qualified juries, suggesting that diversity may improve the vigor, thoroughness, and accuracy of the jury's deliberations.     

Death penalty attitudes and conviction proneness

Attitudes toward the death penalty are consistently predictive of jurors' verdicts in criminal trials. Two studies were conducted to find out why. In Study 1, eligible jurors viewed a videotape showing conflicting testimony by a prosecution and defense witness in an assault case. Death-qualified subjects (those permitted to serve on capital juries) interpreted testimony in a manner more favorable to the prosecution than excludable subjects (those excluded from serving on juries in capital cases due to their opposition to the death penalty), suggesting that differing interpretations of evidence may mediate the relationship between attitudes toward the death penalty and verdicts. In Study 2, the same jurors indicated their reactions to a number of hypothetical situations in which a jury had convicted an innocent defendant or acquitted a guilty one. Death qualified subjects expressed less regret concerning erroneous convictions and more regret concerning erroneous acquittals than excludable subjects. Theoretical interpretations of this pattern of results suggest that death qualified subjects may have a lower threshold of conviction than excludable subjects; thus the relationship between attitudes toward the death penalty and verdicts may also be mediated by differing thresholds of conviction.During the course of this research, William C. Thompson was supported, in part, by a National Science Foundation graduate fellowship.     

Juror decision making in the capital penalty trial

Two factors thought to influence jurors' penalty decisions in capital trials—the nature of the crime committed and the defense's portrayal of the convicted offender's character—were examined. Mock jurors were death-qualified and exposed to one of twelve simulated penalty trials. Each trial was comprised of one of three capital crimes and one of four defense strategies. Jurors were least punitive in robbery-murder conditions and most punitive in multiple murder conditions. A conceptual argument against capital punishment was the most effective defense; a mental illness defense was the least effective. Penalty decisions were mediated by three attributional variables: (a) juror perceptions of the defendant's volition, (b) juror perceptions of the defendant's future dangerousness, and (c) juror perceptions of the relative competency of the opposing attorneys.This article is based on the author's dissertation which received an Honorable Mention in the 1985 SPSSI Dissertation Prize competition. The research was made possible by grants from the University of California, Santa Cruz and Division 41 of the American Psychological Association. The author is indebted to Craig Haney, Elliot Aronson, and Dane Archer for their valuable suggestions and support.     

What does “unwilling” to impose the death penalty mean anyway? another look at excludable jurors

The debate regarding the death qualification of juries usually concerns (a) whether death-qualified jurors have different attitudes and values to excludable jurors, or (b) whether death-qualified juries are more prone to convict. A pivotal question is whether excludable subjects in fact willever impose the death penalty. Subjects were presented with five grisly murder vignettes. Only 40% of excludable subjects refused to consider the death penalty in all of the cases, with the remaining 60% indicating they would consider the death penalty in one or more of the cases. It is argued that the majority of individuals currently being excluded from capital trial juries based on their reservations about the death penalty actually would impose the death penalty for serious enough offenses and that they should therefore be allowed to serve on such juries.     

De facto departures from insanity instructions

De facto departures form the law (de jure) have been noted in such areas as jury revolts, jury nullification, extralegal concerns, and insanity. The thesis developed here is that (a) when such departures have occurred in insanity cases, acritical rather thaninstructive view of jurors has prevailed; (b) this critical view impedes efforts to empirically understand jurors' constructs of insanity and thereby restricts considered legal changes; (c) the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 is illustrative of such narrowly considered changes, and, based on empirical findings, this act fails to instruct jurors or produce verdicts different from its predecessors; and (d) based on empirical findings, the common sense construals ofsane andinsane do emerge, complex though they be. Suggestions toward an empirically derived common law test of insanity, one that harmonizes legal, psychological, and common sense perspectives, are offered.This article is based in part on a paper, De Jure and De Facto Insanity Tests, presented at the American Psychological Association's Annual Convention, August 14, 1988, Atlanta, Georgia.     

Split-brain madness

With facts and metaphors regarding differential functioning of our two hemispheres proliferating faster than our understanding, the potential for a new insanity defense to emerge to fit certain Jekylland-Hyde-like defendants clearly exits. And with psychologists of varying stripes entering the courtroom with greater frequency and in newer capacities, the dangers of entanglement and error grow. This paper analyzes a split-brain insanity defense on the grounds of legal, logical, psychological, and current neuropsychological evidence. In addition, the likelihood, import, and place of this defense in the historical context of insanity defenses is examined. The concept of personal responsibility, which has been both asserted and denied by experts in split-brain or split-psyche cases, is tried; and a closing summary to the jury is offered.     

The Effects of Motive Information and Crime Unusualness on Jurors' Judgments in Insanity Cases

This study investigated the effects of motive information and crime unusualness on mock jurors' judgments in two homicide cases in which the defendant pleaded insanity. Undergraduates (N = 371) read case information and rendered a verdict, estimated the probability that the defendant was insane, and made additional judgments about the defendant's mental state. The defendant was more likely to be judged insane if the crime was oddly committed rather than committed in a typical manner. Prosecution motive information also affected judgments; the defendant was considered more sane if the prosecution presented evidence of a strong, reasonable motive. Evidence of a crazy, unreasonable motive, presented by the defense, caused jurors to see the defendant in one of the cases as more insane.     

Egocentric bias in perceived fairness: Is it observed in Japan?

Experiment 1 was a Japanese replication of the studies reported by Messicket al. (1985) and Liebrandet al. (1986). Subjects were asked to write down fair or unfair behaviors that they or others did, giving as many examples as possible in 5 min. As in the previous studies, the subjects began more fair behaviors with the word I than with others. Likewise, they began more unfair behaviors with the word others than with I. In Experiment 2, 80 examples of behaviors (40 fair and 40 unfair) were selected randomly from the results of Experiment 1. The difference between the number of frequent behaviors sorted into the fair/I category and that sorted into the unfair/I category was greater than that between the number of behaviors sorted into the fair/others and that sorted to be unfair/others. Salient behaviors were more likely to be sorted into the category of unfair than into fair, and more likely to be sorted into others than I. On the whole, the egocentric bias of fairness was confirmed in Japan as well as in the Netherlands and the United States. However, in both experiments, gender differences were found; women, compared to men, recalled more others' behavior than their own and were likely to attribute fair and/or unfair behavior to others rather than to themselves.     

Plan and counterplan: Notes on moving beyond the crisis in planning theory

Conclusions In developing a working class perspective of planning theory, I have suggested that neither bourgeois nor Marxist planning theories can incorporate the dissensus tactics that are at the heart of working-class movements. Neither can they deal with the class nature of planning nor the class composition of planners. As the current social, political and economic crisis was forced on capital by the struggles (plans) of the working class, it follows that working-class counter-plans should deepen the crisis so that benefits will accrue to our side. The development of our successful counter-plans will throw their planning theory deeper into crisis. Ultimately, crisis resolution must be on the terms of the (ex-)working class.     

Own-race bias in lineup construction

The lineup identification of a suspect is often a critical stage in a criminal investigation. One factor which may affect the fairness of a lineup is bias on the part of the person constructing the lineup. the own-race bias, the tendency of individuals to perceive more similarity in the appearance of other-race members than in their own, may affect lineup development. Black subjects and white subjects were asked to construct lineups using both black and white suspects. On three of four measures, their behavior was very similar while making white lineups but different on black lineups. Relative to their performance on white lineups, white subjects became less selective on black lineups but black subjects became even more selective on black lineups. Both groups displayed own-race bias by being more selective about own-race photos than other-race photos. This lessening of selectivity may make lineups constructed by cross-race lineup constructors less fair than lineups constructed by own-race lineup constructors.     

Interviewing Preschoolers: Comparisons Of Yes/No and Wh- Questions

This study investigated the influence of question format on preschool-aged children's errors, their response accuracy, and their tendency to say I don't know when given non-misleading questions in a neutral, unbiased context. Children (3 to 5 years old) participated in a craft-making session that included a staged accident with two experimenters differing in gender and appearance; the environment also had several distinctive features. One week later children were interviewed about actions, participants, and environment; questions were yes/no format with the veridical response yes (yes questions), yes/no format with the veridical response no (no questions), and specific wh- format questions. Question format substantially influenced children's responses: they were most likely to make errors if asked no questions, and were unlikely to answer either yes/no question with I don't know. In contrast, children spontaneously and frequently said I don't know to wh- questions about content they did not recall (environment), but not about content that was well recalled (actions). Implications of question format for reliability of eyewitness testimony by preschoolers are discussed.     

Do Juries Meet Our Expectations?

Surveys of public opinion indicate that people have high expectations for juries. When it comes to serious crimes, most people want errors of convicting the innocent (false positives) or acquitting the guilty (false negatives) to fall well below 10%. Using expected utility theory, Bayes' Theorem, signal detection theory, and empirical evidence from detection studies of medical decision making, eyewitness testimony, and weather forecasting, we argue that the frequency of mistakes probably far exceeds these tolerable levels. We are not arguing against the use of juries. Rather, we point out that a closer look at jury decisions reveals a serious gap between what we expect from juries and what probably occurs. When deciding issues of guilt and/or punishing convicted criminals, we as a society should recognize and acknowledge the abundance of error.     

European Editors of Economics Journals—A General Discussion

In a final inquiry at the end of the Conference on Editorial Policies the three editors, Bruno S. Frey (Kyklos), Manfred J. Holler (Homo oeconomicus), and Jürgen G. Backhaus (European Journal of Law and Economics), were asked to comment on their editorial policies. They answered by explaining the challenges they were or still are confronted with, which strategies they have already developed to go on and of course what they have learnt from the deliberations at this conference. In their statements they referred to their preceding paper presentations, and the contributions by Wolfgang Bergsdorf, who is the chief editor of Die Politische Meinung, and Peter Senn.     

MCMI-III Results for Batterer Program Participants in Four Cities: Less “Pathological” Than Expected

Previous research using diagnostic inventories describe the extent and nature of psychopathology among batterers. MCMI-III scores from batterers in a multisite program evaluation (n = 840) were used to replicate this previous research. As in previous batterer research using the MCMI-I and MCMI-II, the MCMI-III results suggest a complex diversity of psychological problems that does not readily conform to previous profiles. However, less than half of the men had scores suggesting a personality disorder (BR scores 85), as opposed to 80% in a previous batterer study using the MCMI-II. Only one quarter of the men (25%) show evidence of a severe mental disorder. Narcissistic or antisocial tendencies were evident in 39% of our batterer sample, reflecting the sense of entitlement often attributed to batterers. Voluntary, as opposed to court-referred men, were more likely to have depressive and dependent tendencies and evidence of severe disorders. Our multisite sample appears to be less pathological than previous batterer samples and samples of psychiatric or drug outpatients.     

Characteristics of successful and unsuccessful insanity pleas

Thirty men acquitted not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) were matched on type of violent crime and compared to 30 men who unsuccessfully raised the insanity defense. Demographic, legal process, and psychological variables were compared. Eighty percent of successful acquittees previously had been found incompetent to stand trial, compared to only 33% of those found guilty and sentenced to prison. Ninety-six percent of NGRI acquittees opted for trial before a judge rather than a jury; 76% of cases raising an unsuccessful defense were heard in front of a jury. Unsuccessful attemptees also had significantly higher IQ scores and personality profiles characterized by acting-out potential and intact reality testing compared to profiles of NGRIs. The ability of the legal system to identify those meeting criteria for the insanity defense is discussed.     

Comparing the Social Service Utilization, Exposure to Violence, and Trauma Symptomology of Domestic Violence Female “Victims” and Female “Batterers”

Although some authors have suggested that women batterers may really be self-defending victims, to date, no research has been initiated to empirically support this assertion. This paper describes the design and outcomes of a research project that investigated the similarities and differences between women adjudicated as domestic violence batterers and women identified as domestic violence victims. Findings indicated group similarities in the areas of exposure to violence and social service utilization. Although both groups reported high levels of trauma symptomology, victim scores were significantly higher.     

Terrorism and the law: Historical contexts, contemporary dilemmas, and the end(s) of democracy

Recent proposals by the G7 (and Russia) to clamp down on terrorists and terrorism do not define that which is prohibited. Instead, a threat is communicated which in turn allows, among other things, greater attention to be paid officially to camouflage charities and terrorist use of the Internet. Nevertheless, it is somewhat of a truism to note that terrorist violence is ultimately defined or characterized, for purposes of legal prohibition, within a highly politicized atmosphere. Starting with a short summary of anti-terrorist codification efforts made this century, this article examines some of the security interests cited by governments today in their respective struggles against terrorism. More specifically, it is argued that individual perceptions of personal and societal threat are heightened unnecessarily not only by a constant stream of governmental anti-terrorist rhetoric, but further, by an awareness of official and unofficial methods of anti-terrorist surveillance, and the use to which the information so obtained can be put.     

Social justice and legal justice

The main aim of this paper is to challenge the validity of the distinction between legal justice and social justice. It is argued that what we usually call legal justice is either an application of the more fundamental notion of social justice to legal rules and decisions or is not a matter of justice at all. In other words, the only correct uses of the notion of legal justice are derivative from the notion of social justice and, hence, the alleged conflicts between criteria of social and legal justice result from the confusion about the proper relationship between these two concepts. Two views about the social justice/legal justice dichotomy are of particular importance and will provide the focus for the argument: this dichotomy is sometimes identified with a classical distinction between distributive and commutative justice and sometimes with the distinction between substantive and procedural justice.     

Insights on Technology Transfer from the Bureau of Mines

The U.S. Bureau of Mines was established in 1910 to reduce the high accident rate in the nation's coal mines. For 85 years, it conducted a wide variety of tasks related to mining before it was abolished in 1995. The BOM had many technology transfer successes in its lifetime, including more than a dozen R&D100 awards. This essay identifies and discusses five transfer factors that can explain the success (or failure) of many Bureau of Mines projects. These five factors are termed pressure, pitfalls, path, price, and profit.