Factors influencing jury-decision making
RACE
PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY
ACCENT
ATTRACTIVENESS
David Abwender and Kenyatta Hough (2001) considered a number of factors on jury decision making, including physical attractiveness. Their aim was to investigate the Attractiveness Leniency Hypothesis (ALE), that attractive defendants are treated more favourably by juries than less attractive ones. However, the researchers also wanted to examine whether this effect was dependent on the sex of the jurors. There were 207 participants in the study of which 129 were women, and 78 were men. All participants were asked to judge the guilt of, and recommend sentence for, the imaginary case of a drunk driver who drove recklessly and killed a pedestrian. Abwender and Hough found that female participants were more lenient towards an attractive female defendant, and less lenient towards an unattractive defendant. Male participants displayed the opposite tendency.
The study by Mark Bradbury and Marian Williams (2013), suggests that ethnic group matters. The researchers analysed data from real criminal cases in the US and found that juries comprised of predominantly white jurors were more likely to convict black defendants, as were juries made up of mostly Hispanic jurors. In both cases, the effect was more marked for certain crimes like drug offences. Jeffrey Pfeifer and James Ogloff (1991) got participants to read a transcript of a trial in which the race of the victim and the defendant were varied. Participants were then asked to rate the guilt of the defendant. Results replicated earlier studies which found that participants overwhelmingly rate black defendants guiltier than white defendants, especially when the victim is white.
A study by John Dixon et al. (2002) investigated the effect of a regional accent on the attribution of guilt. A recorded conversation between a male suspect and a male policeman was played to 119 participants. The accent of the suspect was varied so participants either heard a Birmingham accent or a 'standard British ' accent. Ratings of guilt were significantly higher in relation to the Birmingham accent, suggesting this is a further factor that may influence jury decision-making.
click to edit
The job of a jury is to determine the guilt or innocence of a defendant based on evidence presented in the courtroom alone. However, Nancy Steblay et al. (1999) reviewed past research and concluded that pre-trial publicity (PTP), for example on TV news, may have a negative influence on jurors' judgements of defendant guilt.
Procedure: A meta-analysis was made of 44 studies involving 5,755 participants in a mock-jury trial or questionnaires. Negative information was given to experimental group participants and they were then asked to decide on whether the defendant was guilty or innocent. Control groups were not given such information.
Findings: Those who were exposed to negative pre-trial publicity were significantly more likely to return a guilty verdict (59%) than control groups who were not (45%). A number of variables were identified which enhanced the effect (e.g. if the delay between judgement and PTP was larger, or the type of crime - the PTP effect was strongest for murder or sexual abuse). Other variables diminished the effect (e.g. type of crime such as disorderly conduct, or using students as participants).
Conclusions: The data analysed supports the belief that PTP leads people to be more likely to reach a guilty judgement, especially related to certain conditions. The researchers suggest one possible remedy would be to hold trials that attract extensive PTP in foreign locations. They also offer an explanation for the effect of PTP, that it creates schemas in the minds of jurors which then become difficult to shift, and the more publicity there is, the more these schemas become entrenched.
EVALUATION
WEAKNESS: Results are often inconsistent. Marc Patry (2008) found that mock jurors who discussed the case were more likely to find an attractive defendant guilty whilst those who discussed less were more likely to find a plain defendant guilty. This was opposite to the findings of Abwender and Hough.
WEAKNESS: Untested factors may affect real juries. Although some of the studies reviewed and investigated several characteristics of the defendant within the same study, there may be other important influences on jury decision-making. These may include whether certain jurors have personal experience of the offence, whether there are charismatic leaders on the jury who are able to sway opinion, or whether the characteristics of the jurors match the characteristics of the defendant (creating greater possible empathy). The failure to recognise factors such as these may limit the usefulness of mock or even real jury research.
STRENGTH: Most research in this area is ethical. Most studies of jury decision-making and pre-trial publicity involve mock juries and ·imaginary' cases. Although there may be issues with this method from a validity perspective, this does allow researchers to manipulate variables in a way that would not be practical or ethical in a real trial. Although the Bradbury and Williams study could be considered an exception in this regard, as it used real-trial data, this was secondary data from trials that had already occurred. This means that extra-legal factors can be analysed without prejudicing the outcome of a real trial.
APPLICATION
Members of a jury are human beings subject to biases which may impact upon the neutrality of the verdict. Jurors should be reminded (by the judge and other court officials) of the need to remain impartial, and not to let extra-legal factors distort their interpretation of the evidence.
A01
A jury is made up of 12 adults. They follow strict rules - allow for confidentiality and protection. They should base their decisions on facts and need to decide whether a person is guilty or not.
Crown court - power to give long prison sentences if necessary. A jury is selected to help the judge with this case. Magistrates - lighter sentences and lesser crime.