Jurors' knowledge of battered women

An increasing number of psychologists with expertise in the area of battered women are participating in the legal system as expert witnesses and occasionally testify on behalf of a battered woman who has injured or killed her partner. Testimony about the battered woman syndrome has been offered to help the jury understand why the defendant reasonably perceived that she was in danger of harm. One of the requirements of expert testimony is that it be beyond the common understanding of the jury. Many commentators assume that jurors are uninformed or misinformed about battered women and, thus, that expert testimony is necessary to educate them. This study evaluated what jurors know about violent relationships. Approximately 300 jurors read scenarios about spousal violence and answered a questionnaire dealing with circumstances surrounding such abuse. Results suggest that on certain dimensions of spousal violence, jurors are aware of empirical research findings. On other dimensions, jurors are less well-informed and could potentially benefit from the testimony of an expert.     

Impact of hypnotic testimony on the jury

In the past decade, the forensic use of hypnosis to enhance the memories of victims, witnesses, and defendants has sharply increased. A great deal of controversy surrounds this issue. Some commentators argue that testimony derived from hypnosis should not be allowed as evidence because of its inherent unreliability and the unduly powerful impact it may have on a jury. In the present research, we used a jury simulation technique to study the impact that a hypnotically refreshed witness has upon jurors' decision making. A major finding is that jurors view hypnotic testimony with a certain amount of skepticism. In some respects, its impact is comparable to that of testimony based on delayed recall, and rarely does it have the impact of testimony from an immediate report. In addition, jurors' judgments about hypnotically refreshed testimony affected the way they evaluated other evidence at trial: Jurors who learned that a prosecution witness had been hypnotized were less believing ofother prosecution witnesses than were jurors not exposed to hypnotic testimony. The forensic application of these findings is discussed.This research was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation, Law and Social Sciences Program. We thank Jane Goodman, Doug Leber, Bonnie Sawnson, Russ Wade, Karen Guest, Jonna Barsanti, Don Kline, Elaine Sullivan, and David Kuykendall for their help at various stages of the project.     

Planning and the play of power: Resource acquisition among criminal justice agencies

The article reports a portion of the findings of a national study of manpower planning in criminal justice. The study and its findings have been reported more fully elsewhere. The present article reexamines and reconsiders the data specifically with respect to public policymaking, the behavior of public organizations, and the role of fact and value in the allocation of government resources.     

Stereotypes influence beliefs about transfer and sentencing of juvenile offenders

Despite sharp drops in juvenile crime since the mid-1980s, punitive policies regarding juveniles who commit serious offenses still exist. We assessed beliefs about two such practices: transferring offenders from the juvenile justice to the criminal justice system, and subjecting them to sentences of life without parole (LWOP). We examined whether stereotypes about juvenile offenders – the extent to which people believe they are dispositionally violent superpredators versus economically and socially impoverished wayward youth – influence support for these policies. We measured 321 participants’ beliefs about the causes of juvenile crime and juveniles’ potential for recidivism and rehabilitation. Using vignette methodology and actual case facts, we described a 13-, 17-, or 21-year-old offender who murdered a stranger or abusive parent, and asked whether he should be transferred to criminal court and sentenced to LWOP. As endorsement of the superpredator stereotype increased, so did support for these practices. Offenders who murdered an abusive parent were shown more leniency. Older offenders were generally treated harsher, except by people with strong superpredator stereotypes who, on the issue of LWOP appropriateness, did not distinguish among juveniles of different ages. Findings suggest that stereotypes can influence judgments in cases involving juveniles and indirectly affect policy-making about juvenile offending.     

The attack on national regulation: why we need a global framework for domestic regulation

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. Key points

• In regulating cross-border capital markets transactions,regulators are employing either an exemptive approach, or aunilateral or mutual recognition approach. The exemptive approachallows market participants wherever located to transact businessin the host countries without complying with local requirements.The recognition approach is limited to a particular market,but is more expansive in terms of access to host country investors.In regulating cross-border transactions, the SEC has traditionallyrelied on the exemptive approach, and has restricted participationto only the largest, most sophisticated US investors. Recently,it has moved to a mutual recognition approach with its agreementwith Australia, which allows a broader range of US investorsto conduct cross-border transactions with Australian exchangesand broker–dealers relying almost entirely on the adequacyof the Australian regulatory system. However, both its exemptiveapproach and mutual recognition approach deal only with secondarymarket transactions, not participation in offerings.
• While. . . [Full Text of this Article]