On the ubiquity of drug selling among youthful offenders in Washington,D.C., 1985–1991: Age,period, or cohort effect?

We present a multiple-cohort analysis of rates of participation in drug offenses versus other crime in an urban sample, based on official charge data on young adults from the Pretrial Services Agency in the District of Columbia for the years 1985 to 1991. We make lower-bound estimates of how many individuals from particular population groups residing in the District are involved in drug-related criminal activities, examine trends in drug and nondrug charges in Washington, D.C., and disentangle the age, cohort, and period effects in the variation in participation in drug offenses across multiple birth cohorts in the city. We estimate that up to 30% of the young, black male populationof the District of Columbia were charged with drug distribution during this time. Charge rates for drug distribution activities appear to peak around age 24, decreasing slowly thereafter. Large and nonlinear period effects were observed for all drug-related charge rates, while increasing linear period effects were found for nondrug misdemeanors. Cohort effects in drug-related charge rates were also observed. Levels of participation in drug distribution charge rates were lower for older cohorts, while the cohort share with a drug possession charge declined for younger cohorts. However, when age and period effects are included in the models, these cohort effects are muted or disappear, except in the case of nondrug misdemeanors.     

Goal Conflict in Juror Assessments of Compensatory and Punitive Damages

Recent tort reform debates have been hindered by a lack of knowledge of how jurors assess damages. Two studies investigated whether jurors are able to appropriately compartmentalize compensatory and punitive damages. In Study 1, mock jurors read a trial summary and were asked to assess compensatory and punitive damages in one of three conditions: (a) compensatory damages only, (b) punitive damages for the plaintiff, or (c) punitive damages for the state treasury. Results suggest that jurors who did not have the option to award punitive damages inflated compensatory damages via pain and suffering awards. Jurors were marginally more likely to award punitive damages when the plaintiff was the recipient. Mock jurors in Study 2 read a similar case summary and were asked to assess compensatory and punitive damages. Two factors were varied in Study 2: (a) egregiousness of the defendant's conduct, and (b) the recipient of any punitive damages (the plaintiff vs. a consortium of state funds). Jurors were more likely to award punitive damages when the defendant's conduct was more egregious and when the plaintiff was the recipient. The results suggest leakage between compensatory and punitive damage judgments, contrary to the law's mandate.     

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.