Juror Sensitivity to the Cross-Race Effect

Black and White mock jurors' sensitivity to the cross-race effect was investigated by varying the race of the eyewitness in a simulated murder trial of a Black defendant. Participants heard an audiotape of a trial after which they rendered a verdict and rated the credibility of the witnesses. White participants found the prosecution witnesses (including the eyewitness) more credible, and the defense witness less credible, than did Black participants; they were also more likely to find the defendant guilty. The Black eyewitness was perceived as more credible than was the White eyewitness, but eyewitness race had no effect on verdict. These results are consistent with the literature indicating that jurors of different races reach different verdicts, and also that jurors are relatively insensitive to factors that affect eyewitness testimony, such as the cross-race effect.     

Fostering Juror Comfort: Effects of an Orientation Videotape

The purpose of the present study is to assess the impact of a juror orientation videotape on juror knowledge of the legal system and comfort levels regarding jury service. Juror knowledge and comfort were measured using the Juror Knowledge and Comfort Scale (JKCS). It was hypothesized that jurors exposed to the orientation videotape would be significantly more knowledgeable about the legal system and significantly more comfortable with their role as jurors. It was further hypothesized that there would be a significant correlation between the knowledge scale and comfort scale of the JKCS. Results indicate that jurors exposed to the orientation videotape scored significantly higher on both the knowledge scale and comfort scale than jurors not exposed to the orientation videotape. There is also a significant correlation between the juror knowledge and comfort components of the JKCS. The implications of the findings and directions for future research are discussed.     

The Effects of Pretrial Publicity on Juror Verdicts: A Meta-Analytic Review

The effect of pretrial publicity (PTP) on juror verdicts was examined through a meta-analysis of 44 empirical tests representing 5,755 subjects. In support of the hypothesis, subjects exposed to negative PTP were significantly more likely to judge the defendant guilty compared to subjects exposed to less or no negative PTP. Greater effect sizes were produced in studies which included a pretrial verdict assessment, use of the potential juror pool as subjects, multiple points of negative information included in the PTP, real PTP, crimes of murder, sexual abuse, or drugs, and greater length of time between PTP exposure and judgment. The effect was attenuated with student subjects, use of general rather than specific PTP information, certain types of PTP content, a post-trial predeliberation verdict, and specific types of crimes. Implications of these results are discussed, along with possible mechanisms that underlie the PTP effect.     

Chaos in The Courtroom Reconsidered: Emotional Bias and Juror Nullification

A widespread presumption in the law is that giving jurors nullification instructions would result in "chaos"-jurors guided not by law but by their emotions and personal biases. We propose a model of juror nullification that posits an interaction between the nature of the trial (viz. whether the fairness of the law is at issue), nullification instructions, and emotional biases on juror decision-making. Mock jurors considered a trial online which varied the presence a nullification instructions, whether the trial raised issues of the law's fairness (murder for profit vs. euthanasia), and emotionally biasing information (that affected jurors' liking for the victim). Only when jurors were in receipt of nullification instructions in a nullification-relevant trial were they sensitive to emotionally biasing information. Emotional biases did not affect evidence processing but did affect emotional reactions and verdicts, providing the strongest support to date for the chaos theory.     

Juror adjustments to the reasonable doubt standard of proof

The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is based on the law's primary motivation to avoid false conviction even at the expense of increasing the probability of false acquittal. Individual jurors, however, have common sense motivations to make factually correct decisions by avoiding both types of error. As a result jurors may interpret the standard of reasonable doubt correctly but deviate from that interpretation in predictable ways when they apply the standard in court. This study makes three hypotheses: (1) jurors are less confident when deciding on acquittal than when deciding upon conviction, (2) conviction is associated with a downward adjustment of the interpreted stringency of the standard at the time of application, and (3) a highly stringent interpretation of the standard is associated with a severe downward adjustment of that stringency at the time of application. The study asked 260 juror-eligible participants to examine a trial scenario. The participants first interpreted the stringency of the legal standard on a probability scale. They then judged the probability of the defendant's guilt, decided on a verdict, and rated their confidence in that verdict. The findings strongly supported all three hypotheses. Application and implication of the study were discussed.     

Examining the Construct Validity of the Original and Revised JBS: A Cross-Validation of Sample and Method

Factor analysis is a statistical technique that can provide an understanding of construct validity. Previous research examining the factor structure of the Juror Bias Scale (JBS) has uncovered problems in the scale's assessment of the constructs of probability of commission (PC) and reasonable doubt (RD). We here reevaluate the scale's constructs to better our understanding of the pretrial biases involved in the juror decision-making process. Importantly, previous findings have been limited to college student samples and trial material that has involved rape evidence. This study examines the construct validity of the JBS in a sample of 617 jury-eligible adults drawn from the community, and the predictive validity of the JBS is examined across 3 distinct trial scenarios. The results parallel earlier findings, indicating that although RD is a tenable and useful construct affecting juror decision-making, PC may be a less relevant pretrial bias. We therefore suggest that future research emphasize alternative constructs, such as confidence and cynicism in the criminal justice system.     

Intoxicated Consent in Rape: Bree and Juror Decision-Making

The article examines the recent Court of Appeal judgment in Bree, in which the court considered the guidance that should be given to a jury when the complainant is intoxicated at the time of an alleged rape. As well as analysing the reasoning of the court in Bree, the judgment is placed in context by examining factors, such as social attitudes, that influence juror decision-making in rape cases. It also examines the suggestion made by the court in Bree that further law reform in this area would represent 'patronising interference' in the lives of women.     

The Impact of Prejudice Screening Procedures on Racial Bias in the Courtroom

The current study examines the impact of the challenge for cause procedure and its effectiveness in curbing racial prejudice in trials involving Black defendants. Participants were provided with a trial summary of a defendant charged with either drug trafficking or embezzlement. The race of the defendant was either White or Black, with participants in the Black defendant condition receiving (prior to the trial presentation) either no challenge, a close-ended standard challenge, or a modified reflective pretrial questioning strategy. Overall, the results revealed an anti-Black bias in judgments. While the closed ended challenge did little to reduce this bias, the reflective format demonstrated a reduction in racial bias. Theoretical and applied implications of these findings are discussed.

Understanding the Relationship Between Racial Prejudice and Support for the Death Penalty: The Racist Punitive Bias Hypothesis

Many studies have shown that there are significant racial disparities in the application of death penalties. In this paper, three studies (N = 484, 94% female), conducted in France, test and explore why racial prejudice and support for the death penalty (SDP) are strongly and positively related. First, prejudice against Arabs remains a significant predictor of SDP, even when ethnocentrism/authoritarianism (Study 1) and Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA; Study 2) are statistically controlled. Second, the attribution of criminal traits to Arabs (Study 1) or criminality-based prejudice (Studies 2 and 3) significantly mediates the relationship between racial prejudice and SDP. Finally, a path analysis illustrates that two relatively independent processes could explain the relationship between prejudice towards Arabs and SDP: criminality-based prejudice leading to specific SDP for Arabs and Social Dominance Orientation (Study 3). Together, these results provide support for the racist punitive bias hypothesis. When racist people think about questions of crime and punishment, they frame the issue in racial terms, leading them to support a punitive law which in their minds will mainly punish minority racial groups.     

Eyewitness Accuracy Rates in Police Showup and Lineup Presentations: A Meta-Analytic Comparison

Meta-analysis is used to compare identification accuracy rates in showups and lineups. Eight papers were located, providing 12 tests of the hypothesis and including 3013 participants. Results indicate that showups generate lower choosing rates than lineups. In target present conditions, showups and lineups yield approximately equal hit rates, and in target absent conditions, showups produce a significantly higher level of correct rejections. False identification rates are approximately equal in showups and lineups when lineup foil choices are excluded from analysis. Dangerous false identifications are more numerous for showups when an innocent suspect resembles the perpetrator. Function of lineup foils, assessment strategies for false identifications, and the potential impact of biases in lineup practice are suggested as additional considerations in evaluation of showup versus lineup efficacy.     

Racial Discrimination and Hirschi's Criminological Classic: A Chapter in the Sociology of Knowledge

In Causes of Delinquency, Travis Hirschi attempted to falsify the strain theory claim that racial discrimination might contribute to the delinquency of African American youths. A reanalysis of the Richmond Youth Project data used in his classic study, however, reveals that perceived racial discrimination is a robust predictor of delinquent involvement. This finding suggests that Hirschi missed a historic opportunity to focus the attention of a generation of criminologists on how the unique experiences of African Americans may shape their criminality. Given the salience of perceived racial bias in the lives of many African Americans, the subsequent neglect by scholars of discrimination as a potential source of crime is a remarkable omission—so much so that it constitutes a significant and as yet untold chapter in the sociology of knowledge.     

A Third Verdict Option: Exploring the Impact of the Not Proven Verdict on Mock Juror Decision Making

In most adversarial systems, jurors in criminal cases consider the binary verdict alternatives of "Guilty" and "Not guilty." However, in some circumstances and jurisdictions, a third verdict option is available: Not Proven. The Not Proven verdict essentially reflects the view that the defendant is indeed culpable, but that the prosecution has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Like a Not Guilty verdict, the Not Proven verdict results in an acquittal. The main aim of the two studies reported here was to determine how, and under what circumstances, jurors opt to use the Not Proven verdict across different case types and when the strength of the evidence varies. In both studies, jurors were more likely to choose a Not Proven verdict over a Not Guilty verdict when the alternative was available. When evidence against the defendant was only moderately strong and a Not Proven verdict option was available (Study 2), there was also a significant reduction in the conviction rate. Results also showed that understanding of the Not Proven verdict was poor, highlighting inadequacies in the nature of judicial instructions relating to this verdict.     

政府多部门决策协调的研究述评

目标和价值的多元化加剧了政府部门间的协调困境,从而导致一系列决策问题。政府科层结构衍生的协调机制和制度安排调节了部门间自主性与相互依赖性之间的张力,为它们达成决策共识创造出新的结构条件。然而,理解多部门决策协调的关键在于政府部门内生的政治动力和微观过程。在文献回顾的基础上发现,决策协调过程存在“兄弟”不平等现象,即部分政府部门可以利用信息、知识、职能配置和关系网络等资源来实现权威的“再生产”,进而获得更高决策影响力。非对称的权力和权威关系体现了政府部门间动态的行为结果。它涵盖了政府部门在不同决策情境如何通过“零”协调、说服、讨价还价和联盟建设等行为方式促成决策目标或手段的共识。有别于纯粹的竞争和合作定势,权威的“再生产”指向政府部门决策协调行为的一般性特征。     

A Meta-Analysis of Race and Sentencing Research: Explaining the Inconsistencies

Numerous studies have addressed the question: Are African-Americans treated more harshly than similarly situated whites? This research employs meta-analysis to synthesize this body of research. One-hundred-sixteen statistically independent contrasts were coded from 71 published and unpublished studies. Coded study and contextual features are used to explain variation in research findings. Analyses indicate that African-Americans generally are sentenced more harshly than whites; the magnitude of this race effect is statistically significant but small and highly variable. Larger estimates of unwarranted disparity are found in contrasts that examine drug offenses, imprisonment or discretionary decisions, do not pool cases from several smaller jurisdictions, utilize imprecise measures, or omit key variables. Yet, even when consideration is confined to those contrasts employing key controls and precise measures of key variables, unwarranted racial disparities persists. Further, a substantial proportion of variability in study results is explained by study factors, particularly methodological factors.     

Mapping the Racial Bias of the White Male Capital Juror: Jury Composition and the “Empathic Divide”

This article examines the nature of racial bias in the death sentencing process. After reviewing the various general explanations for the continued significance of race in capital cases, we report the results of an empirical study in which some aspects of racially biased death sentencing are examined in depth. Specifically, in a simulated capital penalty‐phase trial setting where participants were assigned to small group “juries” and given an opportunity to deliberate, white male jurors were significantly more likely to sentence black defendants to death than were women and nonwhite jurors. This racialized pattern was explained in part by the differential evaluation of the case facts and the perceptions of the defendant that were made by the white male jurors. We discuss these findings in light of social psychological theories of contemporary racism, and we conclude that the demonstrated bias in capital jury settings should be understood as an interaction of several factors, including individual juror characteristics, group‐level demographic composition, and group deliberation processes.     

Juror decision making for juveniles tried as adults: the effects of defendant age,crime type,and crime outcome

This study examined the influences of the crime type (person or property) and the crime outcome (mild or severe) on mock jurors’ verdict and sentencing decisions for adult defendants and juvenile defendants tried as adults. Jurors read a trial summary depicting a defendant charged with aggravated robbery or second-degree burglary. The crimes had either mild or severe damage inflicted on the person or property, and the defendant's age was presented as 14 or 24. Neither the defendant age nor the crime outcome affected jurors’ verdicts; however, jurors were more likely to convict a defendant charged with a crime against a person. Jurors recommended longer sentences for an adult defendant, a defendant charged with a crime against a person, and a defendant charged with a crime with a severe outcome. The discussion explored these outcomes and the role of bias in jurors’ perceptions of defendants.     

Social Influence in Eyewitness Recall: A Meta-Analytic Review of Lineup Instruction Effects

Past research has considered the impact of biased police lineup instructions upon eyewitness lineup performance. Biased instructions either suggest to the eyewitness that the perpetrator is in the lineup or otherwise discourage a no choice response. A meta-analysis of 18 studies was employed to review the hypothesis that biased instructions lead to greater willingness to choose and less accurate lineup identifications than do unbiased instructions. The role of moderating variables in the instruction procedure was also considered. In support of the hypothesis, a significantly higher level of choosing followed biased instructions. Lineup type moderated performance accuracy, however. For target-absent lineups the increased level of choosing following biased instructions resulted in reduced identification accuracy. Biased instructions within a target-present lineup generated a higher level of confidence, but had minimal impact on accuracy. Implications for police practice are discussed.     

Sexual harassment stories: testing a story-mediated model of juror decision-making in civil litigation

The story model of juror decision-making proposes that jurors use personal experience and information presented at trial to create stories that guide their verdicts. This model has received strong empirical support in studies using criminal cases. The research presented here extends the story model to civil litigation and tests a story-mediated model against an unmediated model of jury decision-making. In Phase 1, content analysis of mock juror responses to 4 realistic sexual harassment cases revealed prototypic plaintiff and defense stories. In Phase 2, these prototypic stories were included as mediators in a model predicting verdicts in 4 additional sexual harassment cases. Mock juror attitudes, experiences, and demographics were assessed, then attorneys presented abbreviated versions of 4 actual sexual harassment cases. Path analyses provided support for the story-mediated model, which added significantly to the amount of variance accounted for in the outcome measures of verdict, commitment to verdict, and confidence times verdict. Implications for sexual harassment and other types of civil cases are discussed.