Gender differences in the evaluation of aggravating and mitigating circumstances: the mediating role of attributional complexity*

At the penalty phase of a capital trial, jurors endorse and weigh aggravators and mitigators. The purpose of the current studies was to examine how gender differences in attributional complexity relate to endorsements of aggravators and mitigators. In Study 1, undergraduate participants read definitions of aggravators and mitigators and rated the extent to which circumstances were aggravating or mitigating. In Study 2, a death qualified community sample read a trial summary, rated the extent to which aggravators and mitigators were present in the case, reported whether mitigators outweighed aggravators, and rendered a sentence. Results indicated that gender differences in mitigator endorsement were mediated by attributional complexity, and that gender differences in sentencing decisions were serially mediated by attributional complexity, mitigator endorsement, and aggravator and mitigator weighing.     

The Role of Death Qualification in Venirepersons' Evaluations of Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances in Capital Trials

Previous research has found that death qualification impacts jurors' receptiveness to aggravating and mitigating circumstances (e.g., J. Luginbuhl & K. Middendorf, 1988). However, the purpose of this study was to investigate whether death qualification affects jurors' endorsements of aggravating and mitigating circumstances when Witt, rather than Witherspoon, is the legal standard for death qualification. Four hundred and fifty venirepersons from the 11th Judicial Circuit in Miami, Florida completed a booklet of stimulus materials that contained the following: two death qualification questions; a case scenario that included a summary of the guilt and penalty phases of a capital case; a 26-item measure that required participants to endorse aggravators, nonstatutory mitigators, and statutory mitigators on a 6-point Likert scale; and standard demographic questions. Results indicated that death-qualified venirepersons, when compared to excludables, were more likely to endorse aggravating circumstances. Excludable participants, when compared to death-qualified venirepersons, were more likely to endorse nonstatutory mitigators. There was no significant difference between death-qualified and excludable venirepersons with respect to their endorsement of 6 out of 7 statutory mitigators. It would appear that the Gregg v. Georgia (1976) decision to declare the death penalty unconstitutional is frustrated by the Lockhart v. McCree (1986) affirmation of death qualification.     

Expert testimony in cult-related litigation

The work of forensic psychiatrists has expanded into the controversial area of cases involving new religious movements. Challenges to the expert witness in such cases include new questions and a large body of relevant literature. Published appeals decisions have appeared with judicial comments on the conduct of the involved experts. This article presents the comments about expert witnesses from judges who decided cases involving the major new issues of coercion both in recruitment into and forcible abduction from cults, and competency to join and make donations to these groups. The judicial comments are evaluated using relevant literature from the fields of law, psychiatry, and religion. This provides a basis for general observations and suggestions regarding the involvement of psychiatric experts in cult-related cases.     

Juror background characteristics and attitudes toward rape

Although numerous writers have discussed the importance of and link between juror characteristics and juror decisions in rape trials, anempirical investigation of the relationships between these characteristics and juror verdicts has not been made. Using data obtained from a sample of 896 citizens serving as mock jurors, the principal focus of the present research was on the correlations of jurors' background characteristics and their attitudes toward rape with their decisions in a simulated rape case. Results of the study showed that the jurors' background and attitudinal variables were associated with their decisions. In addition, the pattern of the correlations was quite stable as the characteristics of the case evaluated (in terms of defendant and victim race, victim physical attractiveness, victim sexual experience, strength of evidence presented, and type of rape committed) were found to have only negligible effects on these relationships. Other tests showed that only the attitudinal variables accounted for differences in the jurors' decisionsafter characteristics of the case had been considered. Further, as compared to background data, the jurors' views of rape were the most important predictor of their decisions. Implications of the role of jurors' views of rape in jurors' decisions in rape trials and the use of rape attitudes for selecting jury members in rape cases discussed.     

Plaintiff injury and defendant reprehensibility: Implications for compensatory and punitive damage awards

A criticism of the civil jury is that jurors' decisions about damages are capricious and arbitrary. In particular, critics point to the skyrocketing nature of punitive damage assessments as evidence of a system run amok. The purpose of this study was to examine the factors that influence jurors' decisions about compensatory and punitive awards. We assess whether, as the law intends, jurors' decisions about compensation are influenced by the severity of the plaintiff's injury but not by the reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct, and whether assessments of punitive damages are related to the defendant's conduct but not to the plaintiff's injury. Across three cases, mock jurors generally utilized relevant information and ignored irrelevant factors in their decisions about damages. Results are discussed in terms of the extent to which juror decision making comports with legal doctrine.     

Media effects on jurors

This article examines the impact on jurors of exposure to media coverage of legal issues. Jurors' decisions may be influenced by a broad range of legally relevant information gleaned from media sources, including newspaper reports, radio and television news, advertising, movies, and televised crime shows and courtroom scenes. The article gives examples of these influences from real-world cases and from simulated research studies. It focuses on the impact of trial-relevant publicity on jurors in cases unrelated to the one being publicized; the ways that media representations of the justice system may influence jurors' expectations and decisions; the influence of insurance company advertisements on jurors' damage awards; and the impact of viewing pornography on jurors' decision making. The paper also explores the psychological processes by which each of these effects may occur and evaluates proposed remedies.I thank Alan Siegel for his comments on an earlier draft.     

A Critical Examination of the “White Victim Effect” and Death Penalty Decision-Making from a Propensity Score Matching Approach: The North Carolina Experience

Purpose

Death penalty research has rather consistently demonstrated a statistically significant relationship between defendant race and victim race in general, and for the Black defendant/White victim race dyad specifically. The bulk of this evidence has been derived from correlational studies and from cases over relatively condensed time frames.

Methods

The current study uses data from North Carolina (n = 1,113) over several decades (1977–2009) to evaluate the link between defendant/victim racial dyad and jury death penalty decision-making.

Results

Results suggest that there is an apparent “White victim effect” that can be observed in death penalty decision-making in traditional logistic regression models. Yet, once cases are matched via propensity score matching on approximately 50 case characteristics/confounders including the type of aggravators and mitigators accepted by the jury in addition to the number of aggravators and mitigators accepted, the relationship is rendered insignificant. Furthermore, these results hold for a defendant of any race killing a White victim and for the “most disadvantaged” situation for Black defendants (e.g., cases with White victims).

Conclusions

The “White victim effect” on capital punishment decision-making is better considered as a “case effect” rather than a “race effect.”     

Religion in the Legislative Arena: Affiliation,Salience, Advocacy,and Public Policymaking

Religion is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon that informs politics in various ways. This article examines the effects of religious affiliation, religious salience, and religious group advocacy on roll‐call voting in the Wisconsin state legislature. Various studies have demonstrated the impact of religious affiliation on legislative politics, but our use of additional religious indicators allows us to model the religious effect in a more accurate and nuanced manner. Using data from an original survey of state legislators, we utilized structural equation modeling to measure the direct and indirect effects of these religious factors on both the general pattern of roll‐call voting and voting on a high‐salience issue, abortion. Ultimately, the findings indicate that, even when we control for political party affiliation, which is a dominant influence on roll‐call voting, conservative Protestant religious affiliation and high religious salience influence legislative voting. We conclude with a discussion of the implications for future studies of religion in the legislative arena.     

Religious fundamentalism,religiosity, and priming: effects on attitudes,perceptions, and mock jurors’ decisions in an insanity defense case

Jurors are asked to use their personal knowledge and experience to make verdict decisions; thus, it is no surprise that their religious beliefs might influence their decisions. During legal insanity trials, jurors might also be exposed to religious stimuli (e.g. crucifix, prayer, Bible, etc.), which could evoke (prime) religious beliefs and thus influence decisions. Two studies examined whether dimensions of religiosity and religious beliefs relate to attitudes and decisions concerning mental health defenses, testing social identity theory against Allport and Ross’s religiosity hypothesis. In Study 1 (attitudes survey) and Study 2 (mock juror decision-making paradigm), religious fundamentalist beliefs consistently predicted punitive attitudes and decisions related to mental health defenses and verdicts, and this was moderated by intrinsic religiosity, such that religious fundamentalist beliefs only predicted punitiveness for individuals low in intrinsic religiosity. Also, priming fundamentalist beliefs increased punitiveness in both verdict and sentencing decisions. Combined, these results suggest that religious beliefs play a role in jurors’ verdict decisions in an insanity case, and that priming fundamentalist beliefs increases jurors’ punitiveness. Allport and Ross’s religiosity hypothesis was supported, but social identity theory was not.     

Juror decision making

Much of the research on juror decision making is concerned with whether jurors are swayed by irrelevant-or extralegal-issues in their judgments of defendants. Such studies examine whether jurors' attitudes and victims' and defendants' characteristics have a measurable impact on these decisions. Yet, in the typical study, evidential issues are either poorly measured or ignored, hence the effects of extralegal issues may be exaggerated. Moreover, jury simulations are often chosen to study these questions despite critics' concerns about the generalizability of the results. The present study uses data gathered from actual jurors to assess whether the emphasis on juror competence is justified. The results indicate that these jurors' decisions are dominated by evidential issues, particularly evidence concerning the use of force and physical evidence. Jurors were considerably less responsive to characteristics of victims and defendants, although some of these factors significantly affected their decisions.The research reported here was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health under grant No. R01 MH29727 and the National Institute of Justice under grant No. 82-IJ-CX-0015. The author would like to thank Douglas Smith, Barbara Reskin, and Lowell Hargens for helpful comments on earlier drafts.     

法律与宗教关系的多向度追问

作为共同调整人类社会的规范,法律与宗教存在着千丝万缕、多个向度的联系。从目的指向来看,法律与宗教都关心人类生存的方式与意义;从思想和制度角度来看,法律中的许多思想和制度都发源于宗教和宗教规范;从西方法治建设的演进历程来看,西方法治的形成得益于人们从内心真正信仰宗教权威与规范的传统;从功能上来看,法律和宗教都有凝聚和调试社会等功能,共同成为维系社会的纽带。当下中国,深刻认识宗教与法律的多向度关系之于落实依法治国以及正确应对宗教社会问题都具有重大的意义。     

Boundary Work: Transcendence and Authoriality in Religious and Secular Law

The semiotic investigation of the divine or transcendent authoriality of religious law involves, in the context of discussions concerning the propriety or impropriety of the influence of religion in “secular” political and legal systems, preliminary boundary work to discern the meanings of “religion”, “secular”, and “belief.” Jeremy Waldron’s account of the propriety of religion in “secular” politics, mirroring but reversing John Rawls’ account of religion’s impropriety in that context, can be contrasted with neo-Calvinist (and other) conceptions of pluralism and the inevitability of fundamental “beliefs” in all political and legal thought. In the latter perspectives, religious believers are neither unique in their appeal to transcendent values, nor relegated to advancing theocracy (because pluralism is conceived as a religious value rather than religion’s opposite). A workable alternative to the conventional discourse of religious influence in politics and law is therefore evident.     

Mental competence and end-of-life decision making: death row volunteering and euthanasia

This article reports on a qualitative study of defense attorneys' perceptions of the mental competence or rationality of death row inmates' decisions to waive habeas appeals and proceed directly to execution. Interviews were conducted with twenty attorneys who have either directly represented or been closely involved with would-be volunteers. Through analytic comparison with another end-of-life decision, euthanasia, this article reports on four themes from the interviews: (a) attorneys' perceptions of the legal standard of competence, (b) their perceptions of the competency evaluation process, (c) implications of competing interpretive frames (i.e., volunteering vs. suicide), and (d) the rationality of decisions to waive appeals. Implications of research findings, particularly in terms of recent restructured models of competence, are also discussed.     

Law and the Image of a Nation: Religious Conflict and Religious Freedom in a Brazilian Criminal Case

This article examines a criminal trial in Brazil that touched on the imagined role of religion in public life. The case involved a Protestant minister accused of religious discrimination and of vilipending an image of Nossa Senhora Aparecida, the patron saint of Brazil. The prosecution argued and the court concurred that the minister's iconoclastic verbal and physical gestures endangered the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom. Yet the defense claimed that his actions, stemming from his religious convictions, expressed this same principle of freedom. Different visions of religious free-dom are at stake in the case as well as how such freedom relates to the rights and private lives of citizens. Placed in the history of church-state relations in Brazil, the case raises the problem of interpreting concepts of religious pluralism, religious freedom, and freedom of expression in Brazilian law.     

A Study of Juror and Jury Judgments in Civil Cases: Deciding Liability for Punitive Damages

A study was conducted to investigate civil juries' decisions concerning defendants' liability for punitive damages in tort cases. A total of 121 six-member mock juries composed of jury-service-eligible citizens were presented summaries of previously decided cases and given a comprehensive instruction on the defendant's liability for punitive damages. Most of the mock juries decided that the consideration of punitive damages was warranted, although appellate and trial judges had concluded that they were not warranted. The tendency to find the defendant liable was partly due to jurors' failure systematically to consider the full set of legally necessary conditions for the verdicts they rendered. Individual differences in the jurors' backgrounds were not strongly related to their verdicts; income and ethnicity were weakly related to judgments. The social processes in deliberation on civil juries were similar to the dynamics of deliberation that have been observed in criminal juries.     

Medicare program; provider reimbursement determinations and appeals. Final rule

Subpart R of 42 CFR part 405 consists of regulations governing Medicare reimbursement determinations, and appeals of those determinations, by health care providers. (For the sake of simplicity, throughout this final rule, we use "reimbursement" to refer to Medicare payment under both the reasonable cost and prospective payment systems.) Under section 1878 of the Social Security Act (the Act) and the subpart R regulations, the Provider Reimbursement Review Board (the Board) has the authority to adjudicate certain substantial reimbursement disputes between providers and fiscal intermediaries (intermediaries). Board decisions are subject to review by the CMS Administrator, and the final agency decision of the Board or the Administrator, as applicable, is reviewable in Federal district court. In addition, under the subpart R regulations, intermediaries have the authority to hold hearings and adjudicate certain other payment and reimbursement disputes with providers. This final rule updates, clarifies, and revises various provisions of the regulations governing provider reimbursement determinations, appeals before the Board, appeals before the intermediaries (for lesser disputes), and Administrator review of decisions made by the Board.     

Systematic review of religious affiliations and beliefs as correlates of public attitudes toward capital punishment

Religious reasons are frequently described as considerations that shape support for or opposition to capital punishment; however, there are many inconsistencies in the literature. This study represents a systematic review of the extant research on religious affiliations and beliefs as correlates of public attitudes toward capital punishment. Searches conducted in five databases identified 33 articles, representing 97,570 respondents. Results revealed that people belonging to Protestant affiliations and with negative images of God were more likely to support capital punishment. People possessing positive images of God and with strong beliefs in compassion were less likely to support capital punishment. The religious correlates commonly assessed in the extant literature, such as fundamentalism, are not significant correlates of attitudes toward capital punishment. Findings also revealed that the predominance of research examined Christian religious affiliations, to the exclusion of other common affiliations, such as Buddhist or Islamic affiliations. Taken together, findings suggest that compared to affiliations, religious beliefs better explain attitudes toward capital punishment. Further research is needed to investigate the ways religious correlates influence death qualified jury selection and capital sentencing decisions. An increased understanding of the nuanced relationship between religion and capital punishment attitudes can better inform capital punishment policy and practice.     

The Influence of Administrative Law Judge and Political Appointee Decisions on Appellate Courts in National Labor Relations Board Cases

Scholars have long been simultaneously concerned with the factors that influence appellate court decision making and the level of deference that the courts allow for agencies. However, scholars have treated administrative agencies as unitary actors with a single level of decision making, but in reality agency decisions involve input from multiple actors within the agency. I argue that appellate courts rely more heavily on decisions made by actors in the bureaucracy with greater levels of expertise and who are less politically motivated as cues in their decision making. This theory is bolstered by legal precedent in the area of administrative law that suggests courts should more heavily rely on the expert judgment of administrative judges. Thus, as a result of their increased expertise, appearance of political neutrality, and institutional support, courts will be more reliant on decisions issued by administrative law judges (ALJs) than those issued by the political appointees as cues in their decision making. Using over 300 unfair labor practice decisions issued by the federal appeals courts on review of cases from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board), I develop a model of appeals court decision making in unfair labor practice cases as a function of the initial decision of the ALJ, the final order of the political appointees of the NLRB, case characteristics, the ideology of the deciding appeals court panel, Supreme Court influence, and economic factors. Though the ideology of the court plays a role in its decision making, cues from ALJ decision making and that of the Board weigh more heavily in appellate court outcomes. However, cues from ALJ decisions play the most consistent role in appellate court decision making, even in more difficult cases. This has important implications for agency strategy in courts and suggests that future research should consider the influence of lower‐level decision making over appellate court decision making in the area of administrative law.     

RELIGIOSITY,PEER ASSOCIATIONS,AND ADOLESCENT MARIJUANA USE: A PANEL STUDY OF UNDERLYING CAUSAL STRUCTURES*

This paper examines the relationship between the religious factor and adolescent marijuana use. Using panel data from a sample of 264 high school youth, several three-wave, four-variable models derived from social learning theory and social control theory are estimated. Each model specifies causal links between measures of religious attitude and predispositions (religious commitment and an act-specific religious belief), involvement with marijuana-using friends, and self-reported marijuana use. The results provide evidence that the impact of religion is indirect through its influence on the variable Peer Associations. The findings also show the emergence of a direct effect of the act-specific belief on behavior over time. This effect is interpreted to be more a function of within-group attitude-behavior similarity due to social selection than to socialization to peer group standards. These findings extend rather than refute previous research which fails to control for the effects of peer influences.     

Jurors' use of probabilistic evidence

Mock jurors' use of probabilistic evidence was examined in a fractional factorial design manipulating 7 variables: strength of nonstatistical evidence; quantification of nonstatistical evidence; strength of statistical evidence; combination of 2 pieces of statistical evidence; instruction in use of Bayes' theorem; and presentation of fallacies (both prosecutor's and defense attorney's) concerning use of statistical evidence. One hundred eighty-nine subjects viewed 1 of 16 videotapes presenting a condensed mock trial. Subjects completed dependent measures after each of 4 witnesses and at the end of trial. The strength of both nonstatistical and probabilistic evidence affected verdicts; the other manipulations did not. Overall, subjects slightly underused the probabilistic evidence, as compared to their individualized Bayesian norms, and subjects did not succumb to fallacies. However, subjects greatly varied in over-or underutilization, even after Bayesian instruction. Future research should examine use of weak nonstatistical evidence, and should test different probabilistic instructions.