Ψ Intro to ForenPsych Ψ

Sentencing I:
Psychology of Jury Decision
Making

Dr Rashid Minhas,
Rashid.minhas@uwl.ac.uk,
PH 402
A Lecture in 3 parts Ψ Intro to ForenPsych Ψ

Part 1
Juries as a topic of psychological research
Part 2
Social Psychology of Juries
Group Think, Group Polarisation, Influence
Part 3
Cognitive Psychology of Juries
Heuristics, Jury Selection and Bias
 Ψ Intro to ForenPsych Ψ

Part 1
Juries as a topic of psychological research
 U.K. legal system:
Magistrates’ court:

2 or 3 magistrates, or 1 district judge (no jury) County court:

Tries criminal “summary offences” (most No jury

motoring offences, drunk and disorderly). Tries most civil offences
Passes “indictable offences” to Crown Court.
2011:1,553,983 (non-family) cases
2011: 1.68 million proceedings, 166,808 trials.

Crown Court:
“Bench trial” Judge(s) only
Judge and jury
(Permissible under Criminal Justice
Tries indictable offences (murder, Act 2003 if there is a “real and
rape, burglary) present danger” of jury tampering).
plus appeals against magistrates’
court’s verdicts.

2011: 91,910 trials, 170,421 jurors

Juries of Great Britain
England & Wales: Scotland:
• 12 jurors • 15 jurors
• Unanimous, or (Rarely)‘majority • 8-7 majority required for verdict
rule’ – at least 10 v 2 • 3 verdict options: Guilty, Not Guilty
• 2 verdict options: & Not Proven
Guilty & Not Guilty (see Hope et al., 2008)
Juries of the world (less common)

France Italy Greece

• 3 Judges • 2 Judges • 3 Judges
• 6/9 Layperson Jurors • 6 Layperson Jurors • 4 Layperson Jurors

South Africa United States Russia

• 1 Judge • 12 Layperson Jurors • 12 Layperson Jurors
• Abolished juries in • Jury consultancy • Jury ‘picking’ from 40
1969 candidates
• Jurors must be 25yo
Juries as a topic of study
• Juries are ‘finders of fact’
• They decide what is ‘true;’ or not (a lot of power for 12 laypeople)

• Strangers engaging in complex polyadic engagement (interesting

psychology)

• There are difficulties studying juries by their right to privacy

• Mock jury studies
• Historic/case study data
• Survey data (less common)
Come up with 3 arguments for &
against the use of juries…
• At the side of each photo, using
a scale of 1-5 (1 being not at all
& 5 being very), write down how
sociable, intelligent, trustworthy
and competent you think they
are.
• How did you make your decision?
What happens in a courtroom?
• During the trial the jury listens to all
evidence and testimony presented by
the defence and the prosecution.
• The jurors then talk to each other in
private before making a decision.
• If the jury comes to a guilty verdict,
the judge then decides on a
sentence.
• However sometimes innocent people
are sent to prison or guilty people
are released.
Can juries make mistakes?

Why do you think that juries can make

mistakes?
Defendant characteristics
• We often see attractive people as friendly and trustworthy.
• Are juries equally inclined to rush to the same decision when
they see an attractive person accused of a crime? How a
defendant looks, acts or sounds affect how they are viewed
by a jury.
• When we meet someone new we often base our decision of
them on a few features that are stereotypical.
• What do you think our stereotypical view might be of this
person?
Who would you convict?
• Look at the 2 pictures below. Who would you convict for a
crime of robbery?

• How did you come to your decision?

• What defendant characteristic do you think this is?
Race
How do you think that race can affect jury decision making?

• There is a higher proportion of ethnic minorities in prison (15%)

compared to 8% of the UK general population.
• We have a stereotypical view that black men are more likely to
commit a crime.
• Studies have found that that white jurors are more likely to find a
black defendant guilty compared to a white one.
• Black defendants also receive harsher sentences than a white
defendant for the same crime.
Who committed a crime?
Look at the photos below.
• Which of these men do you think committed murder?
• How did you come to your decision?
• What defendant characteristic do you think this is?
Answers

Michael Graham

Spent 14 years on death row in Louisiana

David Russell Williams for a crime he did not commit. Graham
  was convicted of murder in 1987. After 14
Pride of the Canadian Forces Williams was convicted years of wrongful imprisonment, the state
of assault and murder on many women. Through it all of Louisiana gave Graham a $10 check and
he kept written and photographic records. an overcoat that was five sizes too big. By
the time of his release, Graham had spent
half of his adult life on death row.
Attractiveness
How do you think attractiveness can affect jury decision
making?

• Attractive people are seen as more intelligent, friendly and

honest.
• We are less likely to judge an attractive person guilty of a
crime.
Accent
• People with a ‘rough’ or strong regional accent are often
found ‘guilty’ of robbery as they are seen as needing more
money than a posh defendant.

• Mahoney & Dixon (2002) found that ‘Brummies’ were more

likely to be found guilty of armed robbery than cheque fraud
compared to a defendant with a posh accent.
Question

Michaela is a jury member. She is watching a

burglary case. When talking to other jury
members she discovers that some of them are
basing their decision on the evidence presented
in court. Explain Michaela’s experience of the
jury members.
Judges v Juries Replicating Kalven & Zeisel (1966
– Eisenberg et al (2005)

Table from:
Eisenberg, T., Hannaford‐Agor, P. L., Hans, V. P., Waters, N. L., Munsterman, G. T., Schwab,
S. J., & Wells, M. T. (2005). Judge‐Jury Agreement in Criminal Cases: A Partial Replication
of Kalven and Zeisel's The American Jury. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2(1), 171-
207.
Judges v Juries

Figure from:
Eisenberg, T., Hannaford‐Agor, P. L., Hans, V. P., Waters, N. L., Munsterman, G. T., Schwab, S. J., & Wells, M. T. (2005). Judge‐Jury Agreement in
Criminal Cases: A Partial Replication of Kalven and Zeisel's The American Jury. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2(1), 171-207.
Judges v Juries

Figure from:
Eisenberg, T., Hannaford‐Agor, P. L., Hans, V. P., Waters, N. L., Munsterman, G. T., Schwab, S. J., & Wells, M. T. (2005). Judge‐Jury Agreement in
Criminal Cases: A Partial Replication of Kalven and Zeisel's The American Jury. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2(1), 171-207.
 Ψ Intro to ForenPsych Ψ
So…
Juries are used by a small number of countries in varying ways

They often agree with judges, when they don’t, does it matter?
 Ψ Intro to ForenPsych Ψ

Part 2
Social Psychology of Juries
Group Think, Group Polarisation, Influence
Four key processes

Group polarisation

Groupthink

Majority Influence (Conformity)

Minority Influence
Group Polarisation
• Pre-existing tendencies become enhanced through conflict

• Discussion strengthens existing predisposition.

(You better understand and refine your own argument through
opposition)

• You may have had arguments like this yourself…

• (Bray & Noble, 1978; Kaplan & Miller, 1977)

Groupthink
• ‘A tendency for a group to seek 2. Close-mindedness
consensus at the expense of critical 1. Rationalisation (justify rather than
evaluation of facts and the situation’ re-appraise)
(Janis, 1962). 2. Stereotyping opponents:
underestimation, ad hominem
8 Criteria in 3 groups 3. Uniformity pressure
1. Might is right 3. Illusion of unanimity
1. Illusion of invulnerability (“we are all agreed!”)
2. Illusion of morality 4. Conformity pressures
5. Self-censorship
6. ‘Mind guards’
(“It’s what people do”)
Majority Influence/Conformity

• The classic study – Asch (1955)

[Note: very few attempts to replicate this work]

• Group testing with 5-7 confederates

• Participants generally followed misinformation
• 76% (of 123 Ps) gave at least 1 incorrect answer
• 24% never conformed
• 5% conformed on all 12 critical trials!
Majority Influence/Conformity
Why do individuals conform? (see Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004)

1. Goal of affiliation (cf. normative influence)

• Want to be liked, accepted
• Social rejection increases anxiety
(see Williams et al., 2000)
2. Goal of accuracy
• Desire to form accurate impression of reality by consensus
Minority Influence
Can minorities influence majorities?
• Consistency (e.g., Moscovici, 1969, 1985)
• Confidence: words & behaviour (e.g., Wachtler, 1974)

• Defections from majority (e.g., Levine, 1989)

• Persistent/confident minority punctures illusion of unanimity

• Change of decision vs. change of decision process

(“doing what’s right” as a group as an argument more than the right decision)

• ‘Devil’s advocacy’
 Ψ Intro to ForenPsych Ψ
So…
Four processes underlay jury social behaviour
 Ψ Intro to ForenPsych Ψ

Part 3
Cognitive Psychology of Juries
Heuristics, Jury Selection and Bias
Heuristics and information sense making
• “Fast and frugal thinking” – Gigerenzer, & Gaissmaier, 2011).
Systematic (or central route) processing:
• Detailed & analytical processing - careful analysis of relevant information
THE EVIDENCE

Heuristic (or peripheral route) processing:

• Processing guided by intuitive theories – lacks the cognitive effort associated with systematic
processing
THE EVIDENCE
What I believe….

• Ergo – Juries like nice stories and get bored real quick without them
In lieu of Systematic thinking, we see:

Evidentiary preferences

Inadmissibility effects

Non-evidentiary influences

Jury selection(?)
Evidentiary preferences
Jurors prefer:
• Witness confidence
• Confidence “epiphanies” (Jones et al., 2008)
• Witness Consistency
• Co-witness conformity
• Expert testimony
• Forensic evidence
• Confessions
Inadmissibility effects
• Inadmissible evidence is more influential
(Kassin & Sommers, 1997; Sue, Smith & Caldwell, 1973)
• Sue, Smith & Caldwell (1973) - wiretap

(No wire tap)

Inadmissibility effects
Kassin & Sommers (1997) – reasons for inadmissibility
Non-evidentiary influences
• RWA Authoritarian personalities (Bray & Noble, 1978)

• Appearance – sex, race, dress, age, SES, gender, etc…

• Tattoos - but only with tattoo=crim biases (Funk & Todorov (2013)

• Race interacts with crime type/stereotype (e.g., Gordon et al., 1988)

• Race interacts with salience of race (e.g., Somers & Ellsworth, 2000)

• Also Pre-trial publicity (e.g., Hope et al., 2004)

• Negative PTP leads to increased guilty verdicts
• Distorts information processing (e.g., confirmation bias)
With this in mind…jury selection?
• In the US system there is a
process of jury selection –
rejecting potentially
‘incompatible’ jurors
 Ψ Intro to ForenPsych Ψ
So…
Four processes underlay juror behaviour
 Ψ Intro to ForenPsych Ψ

Sentencing II:
Psychology of Jury Decision Making
 Ψ Intro to ForenPsych Ψ

Next week
Sentencing II:
Psychology of Imprisonment