Decision making in joined criminal trials: The influence of charge similarity,evidence similarity,and limiting instructions

The present research investigated decision-making processes in joined trials of multiple offenses. Subjects judged videotaped trials of three joined charges in a factorial design that varied charge similarity, evidence similarity, and judges' instructions designed to reduce judgement biases; or judged one of several charges presented individually. The results indicated that subjects were more likely to convict a defendant in a joined trial than on the same charge tried by itself, particularly when the charge was presented in the third position. Convictions were more frequent when joined charges were similar, and judges' instructions significantly reduced conviction rates. Subjects judging joined trials confused evidence among charges, rated the prosecution's evidence as stronger, and rated the defendent less favorably than subjects judging single trials. The findings were compared statistically to the results of previous research, and it was concluded that increased convictions in joined trials are robust effects.This research is based on part of a doctoral dissertation by S. Tanford at the University of Wisconsin. The research was supported by National Institute of Justice Grant No. 81-LJ-CX-0048 to S. Penrod.     

Zur Mikrosoziologie von Massentötungen bei Amokläufen

Spectacular but very rare violent events such as mass killings by habitual non-criminals cannot be explained by factors which are very widespread, such as possession of firearms, being a victim of bullying, an introvert, or a career failure. A stronger clue is clandestine preparation of attack by one or two individuals, against randomly chosen representatives of a hated collective identity. The mass killer chooses a setting, costume and timing to establish emotional dominance as precursor to physical casualties; such killers typically amass far more weapons than they actually use, and rely on them both for intimidation and for their own symbolic-emotional support. Mass killings end surprisingly often by surrendering, or committing suicide, once confronted by firm resistance. Mass killers develop a deep back-stage, obsessed with planning their attack, overcoming social inferiority and isolation by an emotion of clandestine excitement. Their actions might be described as mental illness, except that the clinical label adds no further explanatory power – their violent mental illness is socially constructed by just these processes.