The role of economic and psychological variables in parking violations

Abstract

This study explored some of the factors involved in parking violations, using as a framework the model of tax evasion developed by Weigel, et al. (1987). Two groups of parkers were observed, offenders (N = 121) and non-offenders (N =128). Two questionnaires were employed. An initial questionnaire was used at the time of the observed behaviour to ascertain situation-specific factors followed by the main questionnaire which measured attitudes, moral beliefs, social norms and controls, perceived risk and severity of punishment and personal characteristics. Results revealed that the Weigel et al. model was a good predictor of parking violation with both economic and psychological factors being important determinants. There was also a significant correlation between observed and self-reported behaviour. Implications for understanding rule-breaking behaviour in general are also discussed.     

False confessions: The relative importance of psychological,criminological and substance abuse variables

Abstract

The aim of the study was to investigate the relative importance of psychological, criminological, and substance abuse variables in differentiating between alleged false confessors and other prison inmates. The participants were 509 inmates newly admitted to all Icelandic prisons over a four-year period. Sixty-two (12%) of the inmates claimed to have made a false confession to the police sometime in the past. A discriminant function analysis was used to identify the variables that best discriminated between the alleged false confessors and the other prison inmates. Out of 17 psychological variables and 16 criminological and substance abuse variables, two variables (number of previous imprisonments and the score on the Gough Socialisation Scale) correctly classified 93% of the non-false confessors and 32.3% of the alleged false confessors, with a total classification rate of 82.7%. The findings suggest that among Icelandic prison inmates, antisocial personality characteristics and the extent and severity of criminal behaviour, as judged by number of previous imprisonments, are the best predictors of offenders claiming to have made a false confession to the police. The implication is that among some prison inmates, making a false confession is a part of their criminal life style.     

The relationship between Body Mass Index and abnormal psychological and personality variables

The Body Mass Index (BMI) was created in order to classify individuals into body weight categories ranging from below normal to very obese, depending on the individual’s weight and height. The Body Mass Index has been identified as a marker for psychological issues such as self-control, self-esteem, depression, and anxiety. This study used a data matrix composed of a sample of 2,506 police officer candidates. The BMI’s were calculated and correlated with 343 personality variables, including the MMPI-II and the Personality Assessment Index. The results indicated a total of 87 significant correlations, 20 at the .05 level and 67 at the .01 level. Despite the fact that many of the correlations were small, the large number of correlations indicates a significant relationship between BMI’s and individuals with problematic psychological and personality characteristics. Discussion centers upon explanations of the relationship between the Body Mass Index and various psychological concepts.     

The Swedish jury system in press cases: An offspring of the English trial jury?

In the area of press freedom the English influence has for more than 200 years been strongly felt in Sweden. The introduction of a jury system in press cases in 1815 was clearly inspired by the English example. The Swedish variant had, admittedly, some strange features but it was nonetheless, in essence, a jury. Thus it should, historically and systematically, be looked upon as an offspring of the English trial jury.

Since 1815 the Swedish jury has grown more ‘English’ in some respects. Those greater similarities notwithstanding, there are still important differences between the two systems. At least two of the differences are the result of Swedish innovations.

In 1949 the Swedes in the new Freedom of the Press Act included a provision, stating that the court of first instance not only may but must review a verdict of conviction. If also the court convicts and, consequently, fixes the penalty, the defendant can always take the case at least to the appropriate court of appeal. Thus, there is a double‐check or even a triple‐check against an unwarranted conviction. From the defendant's point of view the Swedish jury system can be described as fool‐proof.³⁵

In 1949 the Swedes also introduced a new method of choosing the jury. The jurors are drawn by lot but not, as in England, with the electoral register as the starting point but from a panel chosen by politically elected councils. Furthermore, one third of the jurors must be present or former lay assessors. Through that method of selecting the jurors the Swedes have reasonably counteracted the traditional charges that juries are ignorant or confused or both. On the other hand, the Swedish system may be sensitive to political influence on the administration of justice since the composition, not exactly of this or that jury but of the whole panel, is the indirect result of political elections. However, once more, unwarranted convictions are almost certainly reversed by the courts.

With their method of choosing the jurors the Swedes also avoid a problem which has, in recent years, caused considerable disquiet in Great Britain ‐ jury vetting. The ancient practice of ‘Stand by for the Crown’ is still a reality in English courts. How often the prosecution uses its right to influence the composition of juries by vetting proposed jurors is not known. However, the practice has caused serious concern among lawyers. ‘The fear of “packed” juries is still with us’, to quote an expert in the field, John F. McEldowney.³⁶

The Swedish jury in press cases is certainly not the most important or the best known offspring of the English trial jury ‐ that is, of course, the American jury. However, the Swedish jury has survived for more than 165 years and is still going strong. It is quantitatively of modest significance ‐ there are in ‘normal’ years no more than a dozen cases in the country. However, the jury has an umbrella effect outside the printed media, i.e. what you are allowed to say in a newspaper or in a book you can almost certainly say at a public meeting or on a stage.

In recent decades the Swedish jury has shown a considerable capability of development. It has approached the English model on some points while, at the same time, making innovations on others. It is possible that Sweden during the 1980s may somewhat expand the jury system within the area of free speech, i.e. outside the printed media.     

The effect of jury nullification instruction on verdicts and jury functioning in criminal trials

Jury nullification is a mechanism, and a defense, which allows the jury, as representatives of the community, to disregard both the law and the evidence and acquit defendants who have violated the letter, but not the spirit of the law. Should juries simply follow the law as articulated by the trial judge, or should they act as “conscience of the community,” and neglect the strict requirements of the law when it would lead to unjust or inequitable verdicts? The present study was aimed at providing empirical data for the following question: will the jury operate in a manner which is different than its normal functioning if given explicit nullification instructions? Three nullification instructins varying in explicitness as to nullification were combined with three criminal cases to yield a 3×3 factorial design. Forty-five six-person juries (270 subjects), were randomly assigned to the nine experimental groups. The results showed that juries given explicit nullification instructtions were more likely to vote guilty in a drunk driving case, but less likely to do so in a euthanasia case. The third case, which dealt with murder, did not show any differences due to instructions. Juries in receipt of nullification instructions spent less deliberation time on the evidence and more on defendant characteristics, attributions, and personal experiences.     

The death-qualified jury and the defense of insanity

We predicted that people who are excluded from serving on juries in capital cases due to their opposition to the death penalty (excludable subjects) tend to place a greater value on the preservation of due process guarantees than on efficient crime control, and therefore are more likely to accept an insanity defense in criminal cases than are people who are permitted to serve on capital juries (death-qualified subjects). Subjects who had previously been classified as death-qualified or excludable read four summaries of cases in which the defendant entered a plea of insanity, and made judgments of guilt or innocence. In the two cases involving nonorganic disorders (schizophrenia), death-qualified subjects were significantly more likely than excludable subjects to vote guilty; in the two cases involving organic disorders (mental retardation and psychomotor epilepsy), there were no differences between the two groups. In addition, excludable subjects gave significantly higher estimates than death-qualified subjects of the proportion of defendants pleading insanity who really are insane.     

The representative jury requirement: Jury representativeness and cross sectional participation from the beginning to the end of the jury selection process

The paper specifically addresses the many ways in which the facially neutral procedures actually fail to secure representative jury pools. Although the Sixth Amendment's fair cross‐section requirement forbids systematic discrimination in the creation of the jury venire and panel, it does not guarantee that the criminal jury will in fact reflect an accurate cross‐section of the community. As a result, not only does the Court fail to focus on nonlegally recognized screening mechanisms and factors such as exemptions, excuses, failure to followup jurors, etc., may affect jury representativeness, but also the Court never examined cross‐sectional representation at the entirety of the jury selection processes, except jury panels and final juries.

The first section of this paper presents a brief overview of the constitutional law impacting impartial juries, especially addressing the fair cross‐section doctrine that is the focus of contemporary jury selection procedures. In providing empirical and systematic comparisons of jury participation at each of the distinct jury selection stages encompassing a general population, jury wheels, jury qualified pools, jury eligibles, jury panels, and actual trial jurors, the second section of this paper makes critical analyses of the cumulative effects of screening mechanisms in jury selection. The paper assesses jury compositions by looking at demographic, socio‐economic, and ideological profiles of prospective jurors, illustrating that those jury profiles do not necessarily reflect cross‐sectional representation of the community population at comprehensive stages of the jury selection process. The analytical findings show that unless some deep seated reforms are made to eliminate cumulative effects of selection biases and correct representative imbalances of jury wheels, qualified pools, jury panels, and trial juries, historically underrepresented groups such as racial minorities, the poor, and part‐time employees will continue to be underrepresented on juries, negating the public's shared responsibility for the administration of justice in one of America's most heralded democratic institutions.     

Fair and impartial railroad: The jury,the media,and political trials

The clash between social movements and political authority is often played out in the court rooms in criminal cases which are loosely described as “political trials.” While prosecutors, judges, and defendants rarely agree as to the “political” nature of a particular case, all parties usually regard the jury as the pivotal factor. The jury, of course, is enshrined in Anglo-American legal theory as the final check against suppression of liberty by the state. Plea bargaining is out of the question when the very legitimacy of the state is challenged and when dissident defendants are determined to use the trial process as a means of political expression. The crucial question is whether the jury has in fact lived up to its Constitutional role.The article attempts to answer this question at two levels. First, the history of political trials in the United States is reviewed with the general finding that radicals have faced juries which were both grossly unrepresentative of the general population and typically hostile to the ideas, life styles, and social origins of the defendants. Second, the article considers in some detail the impact of media coverage on potential jurors on one particular recent political case, the 1977–1978 trial of accused “guerrilla-bombers” Richard Picariello and Eduard Guilion in the Federal District Court of Southern Maine. The survey opinion data presented for this case strongly indicate that any chance of a fair trial for the defendants was compromised by effects of sustained hostile media coverage before the onset of the trial. Finally, the article considers available remedies in the form of either legislative reforms designed to ensure representative juries, or voir dire procedures aimed at eliminating biased jurors. A review of these remedies offers little hope that future political trials will be substantially fairer than in the past. Moreover, the direction of current criminal justice reforms, as in the proposed S-1722 Federal Criminal Code, promise to criminalize further important forms of political expression.The conclusion is not that jury trials should be avoided or minimized, since judges are apt to be even more predisposed against dissidents. Rather, the point is that the social and ideological biases which intrude especially in political trials are rooted in the political economy of capitalism which underlies the legal system itself. The jury system remains the best available defense against legal repression, but “justice” must ultimately await the outcome of continued social struggle, rather than further refinements of legal process.     

Juror experience and jury verdicts

Most trial attorneys believe that repeated jury service produces several effects in jurors, one of the most important of which is an increased disposition toward conviction of criminal defendants. However, case law reveals a reluctance to accept the proposition that prior service per se would disquality a juror from sitting on an instant case because of actual or implied bias. The need for direct empirical investigation of the effects of prior jury service prompted the present study, which examined a complete docket of 175 consecutive criminal trials across onecalendar year in a state circuit court which required a 30-day term of its venire. The results indicated that as the number of jurors with prior jury experience increased there was a modest, but significant, increase in the probability of a conviction. Analysis of the relationship between initial verdicts and subsequent service disconfirmed the alternative hypothesis that attorneys deselected jurors on the basis of their first verdicts. Several parameters of experience were also related to foreperson selection. Implications for legal practice and for additional research are discussed.Support for this research was provided, in part, by National Science, Foundation grant No SES-8209479. A portion of this work was conducted while the senior author was a James McKeen Cattell Foundation Fellow.     

Perceptions of jury duty: Satisfaction and overall impression

A jury service exit questionnaire that was designed to measure satisfaction with and overall impression of jury duty was administered to a saturation sample of 2,947 respondents by court clerks serving District or Circuit courts in nine counties in southeastern Michigan. For those sworn to jury duty, global satisfaction with the jury experience is found to be influenced by perceptions of trial characteristics and by the extent of participation in the jury system. The significant predictors of overall impression with the jury system are respondent age, being elected jury foreman, and deliberating a criminal rather than civil case. An earlier draft of this paper was presented at the 1985 Meetings of the North Central Sociological Association. This research was funded in part by the Michigan State Supreme Court. We acknowledge the contributions made to this paper by members of the Sorrento Seminar and by anonymous reviewers. Patrick C. Easto provided the inspiration for writing the first as well as the final draft of this paper.     

Law enforcement officer seniority and PAI variables in psychological fitness for duty examinations

Sixty-two police officers were administered the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) during employer referred psychological Fitness for Duty Examinations (FFDEs). PAI scores were analyzed as a function of the length of time the officers had worked within law enforcement occupations. PAI subtest scales ARD, ARD-P, ARD-T and DEP scores all produced significant positive correlations between both the amount of time spent on the current police job and the total time served as a police officer within a bivariate Pearsonr correlation matrix. Implications for an understanding of psychometric test results within the FFDE context and the evolution of law enforcement officer personality patterns are discussed. Author Note: At the time this research was done, Beth Caillouet was with Matrix, Inc. She is now a graduate student in psychology. Cary Rostow, Ph.D., is a police psychologist and president of Matrix, Inc., and Robert Davis, Ph.D., is executive vice-president and director of science, research, and development for Matrix, Inc., Baton Rouge, LA.     

JUST: a measure of jury system trustworthiness

ABSTRACT

Three studies developed and tested a new measure of the perceived trustworthiness of the jury system, the 23-item Jury System Trustworthiness (JUST) scale, and assessed the scale’s convergent and discriminant validity. Study 1 assessed the scale’s factor structure and relation to other relevant constructs. In Studies 2 and 3, the JUST scale was administered to participants in two separate mock juror studies. The results of all three studies supported the hypothesized factor structure of the measure but showed that a simplified, 7-item measure was also effective. Overall, participants’ perceptions of juries were moderately positive, and the JUST scale was related to attitudes toward the police, authoritarianism, belief in a just world, juror bias, preference for a jury (vs. a bench) trial, and intention to respond to a jury summons. It also explained a unique portion of the variance in jury-specific beliefs and behavioral intentions, such as preference for a jury trial and response to a summons, beyond that accounted for by other legal attitudes. The JUST scale was not related to verdict decisions in either mock trial after controlling for authoritarianism. Several individual differences (e.g. age, race/ethnicity) were also related to attitudes toward the jury system.     

The basis of citizen's perceptions of the criminal jury

Two studies examined citizens' perceptions of the criminal jury and their evaluations of 6- or 12-person juries operating under unanimous or majority decision rules. Study 1 was a telephone survey of 130 adult citizens in which respondents evaluated alternative jury structures in the abstract. In Study 2, students were asked to evaluate jury structures for a hypothetical trial in which they were either the defendant or the victim in a crime with a mild or serious outcome. In both studies, jury size and decision rule were related to ratings of procedural cost, and the severity of the crime moderated procedural evaluations. In Study 1, juries were preferred to judges and the 12-person unanimous jury was preferred over other jury structures when the crime involved was serious. In Study 2, there were no direct effects due to variations in jury structure, but subjects appeared to trade off procedural cost and thoroughness of deliberation as a function of the seriousness of the crime. Procedural fairness emerged as the strongest independent predictor of desirability for jury procedures, and fairness was related to representativeness and accuracy. The role manipulation did not influence subjects' responses. In both studies, respondents were very supportive of the jury as an institution, despite a perception that erroneous jury verdicts do occur.     

Jurors' interpretations and jury decision making

In arriving at their verdicts, jurors must determine what really happened in the case at hand. Their interpretations then guide their decision making and become influential in the group deliberation process. This article uses conversational data from simulated jury deliberations to describe jurors' practice of articulating schematic interpretations as accounts for their verdict choices, and as means for persuading other jurors. As jurors contribute additional interpretations during deliberations, the group decision-making task becomes more complex, deliberations las longer, and they are more difficult to resolve. A significant negative relation is established between the number of interpretations articulated and the jury's likelihood of reaching a unanimous verdict. Articulating multiple interpretations in support of a candidate verdict appears to militate against its unanimous adoption.I am endebted to Andre Modigliani and Joseph Sanders for their invaluable assistance on this project.