Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
4 - Psychology and the Courtroom (Key Research - Dixon et al (2002) (B:…
4 - Psychology and the Courtroom
Jury
Made up of 12 ordinary members of the public (aged between 18-70). Can't be a part if in prison or have mental illness
Adversarial system - the crown is represented by the prosecution lawyer and the defendant is represented by lawyers for defence.
Prosecution make their case against defendant - with witnesses 2. Defence present their case 3. Both sum up their case 4. Jury decide on verdict 5. Charging or let go
Research:
When studying courtrooms mock trial, lab methods are used. Manipulating variables in a real jury is neither ethical or practical. This provides an ethical and standardised way. However, it lacks ecological validity as it isn't in a natural setting
Characteristics of Witnesses/Defendants
Studies show that people who are more physically attractive receive more lenient sentences as they appear more honest. Children - we learn the beautiful are good and the ugly are bad e.g. Cinderella. Halo effect is a cognitive bias in which our judgements of a persons character is influenced on the way they look.
Castellow (1990)
- 145 psychology students took part in a mock trial which they gained extra credit for. Read a sexual harassment case, then shown a photo (one attractive, one unattractive). Asked to decide guilty or not guilty. Results: Attractive (56%) Unattractive (76%)
Witness confidence, socio-economical status, race and the attractiveness
of the defendant affects juridical decisions. How they dress, speak and even their posture in the witness box are extra-legal factors
Penrod and Cutler (1995)
- If witness was 100% confident - conviction rate was 67%, if witness was 80% - conviction rate was 60%
Stewart (1985)
- Negative correlation between attractiveness and severity of punishment. Results: more attractive, less severe. Racial bias - Non whites are more likely to be convicted (with violent crimes). Lakoff theory of hedges, intonation etc appear less intelligent and believable.
Key Research - Dixon et al (2002)
B
: Suggests peoples accents have an effect on the impression they give off. Standard accents are rated more positively on competence and intelligence.
Legal context (Seggie 1983) - RP, broad Australian and Asian were tested. Assessment of guilt made - e.g. Australia (rated higher guilt ratings for assault - blue collar) and RP (rated higher guilt ratings for theft - white collar).
Aim
: Test hyothesis of a Brummie accent would produce stronger attributions of guild than stand accent. Alos, whether race/type of crime would affect this.
Sample:
119 White psychology students from University of Worcester (24m, 95f), mean age = 25.2yrs.
Lab experiment
Procedure
- Lab experiment with 3 IV's (accent, race, type of crime). Pp's listened to 2 minute police transcript, with middle aged,male police inspector and young male suspect. Rated the likely guilt of accused on 7 point scale from innocent to guilty and the speech evaluation instrument.
Results
-
1
Superiority (Brummie suspect scored lower)
2
- Brummie suspect rated as more guilty than the standard suspect
3
Brummie, black and blue collar - significantly higher guilt findings
Conclusions
- Accent has a significant effect on judgements of guilt or innocence.
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH
Usefulness
- Provides evidence that accent/type of crime/race have impact on being perceived as guilty. Judges need to be aware of these so factors don’t affect decision.
Socially Sensitive
- Finds have potential impact on groups (Brummies, black people, working class people) which may led to discrimination in legal context.
Low ecological validity
- Race of suspect is suggested and no other evidence presented like real life legal proceedings.
Application from Study
Strategies to influence jury decision making
- advised to be formally dressed and neatly groomed with no visible tattoos. The aim is to give a jury a good first impression and avoid being judged negatively due to appearance. Focus on how to view case objectively
Using expert witness
- expert psychologists can be called upon to give evidence about psychological variables affecting the accuracy of eyewitness testimonies and can persuade a jury an eyewitness is unreliable. Loftus (1980) study with 120 students Washington. Read case and half read about unreliable factors
Effects of shields and videotape on children giving evidence
- In crimes such as kidnapping and sexual abuse a child may be the only witness. To reduce psychological stress, children can be an eyewitness by a video link or behind a screen. However it may lead to the jury believing the child is guilty due to needing to be away from the defendant. Ross et al (1994) - 300 psychology students, found that there is no significant difference across conditions when judge makes the jury aware.
DEBATES OF B4
Psychology as a science
- Courtroom processes are investigated using lab experiments (standardised, manipulation of IV e.g. accent etc).
Review court procedures from previous cases.
Socially Sensitive
- Judging characteristics on sentences e.g. more harshly. Stereotypes and legal system isn't fair due to subjective bias
Usefulness
- Intervention can occur, making justice system more fair (not affected by disadvantaged background, age, gender, characteristics).
Situational
- Context of courtroom (characteristics)