PSYC367 - Jury Decision Making

Jury decision making mind-map based on Tom Ormerod's lecture.

HideShow resource information
View mindmap
  • Jury Decision Making
    • Models of Jury Decision Making
      • Explaination/Story Based
        • Story-model (Pennington & Hastie, 1988) jurors organise evidence given in court into a narrative. This includes inferred evidence from scritps and prior attitudes towards certain people and certain crimes
      • Mathetmatical Model
        • jurors complete unconscious mental calculations, weighing up the evidence and proabilityies of each piece of evidence
      • Dual Process Account
        • Heuristic Systematic Model (Chen & Chaiken, 1999) The systematic component is the analysis of information relevenat to the decision or judgment to be made. The heuristic component is the rule of thumb applied to the judgment to be made. This can be knowledge driven based on the evidence given in court, or it can be generic based on availibitly of information, or individual biases which can confirm the story held in mind.
    • Juror Characteristics
      • Gender: females are more likely to give an intial guilty verdict for suspects of rape crimes
      • Age: jurors are more likely to give a guilty verdict the older they become
      • Socio-ecomonomic status: uncertain
      • Race: when evidence lack strength, white jurors will give a white suspect the benefit of the doubt, but they will not for black suspects. Black jurors will show no discrepency
    • Juror Deliberation
      • Deliberation Approaches: combining preferences, sharing cognitions, cognitive centrality, shared representations (leniency effect)
      • Typically the majority verdict held by individuals prior to deliberation is the verdict the jury will reach holistically after deliberation (Bornstein & Green, 2011)
      • Group Think (Janis, 1972) jurors often supress views if the are not in line with the majority of the group, in favour of acheiving a whole group consensus
    • Specific Cases
      • Vicky Pyrce: judge dismissed the jury after they presented him with a list of questions asking about the court proceedings, the judge then deemed them incompetent
      • Joanne Frail; charged with contempt of court, for contacting the suspect involved in her case on facebook, breaking the no discussion rule
      • OJ Simpson attorney; asked for a race balance to be changed within the jury so as to not unfairly bias his defendant
  • UK Jury System
    • Impartiality
      • Isolation
        • So members focus only on the evidence presented in court
    • Decision processes NOT recorded
    • Task: Determine verdict
      • Outcome: guilty, innocent or hung
    • Jury Decision Making
      • Models of Jury Decision Making
        • Explaination/Story Based
          • Story-model (Pennington & Hastie, 1988) jurors organise evidence given in court into a narrative. This includes inferred evidence from scritps and prior attitudes towards certain people and certain crimes
        • Mathetmatical Model
          • jurors complete unconscious mental calculations, weighing up the evidence and proabilityies of each piece of evidence
        • Dual Process Account
          • Heuristic Systematic Model (Chen & Chaiken, 1999) The systematic component is the analysis of information relevenat to the decision or judgment to be made. The heuristic component is the rule of thumb applied to the judgment to be made. This can be knowledge driven based on the evidence given in court, or it can be generic based on availibitly of information, or individual biases which can confirm the story held in mind.
      • Juror Characteristics
        • Gender: females are more likely to give an intial guilty verdict for suspects of rape crimes
        • Age: jurors are more likely to give a guilty verdict the older they become
        • Socio-ecomonomic status: uncertain
        • Race: when evidence lack strength, white jurors will give a white suspect the benefit of the doubt, but they will not for black suspects. Black jurors will show no discrepency
      • Juror Deliberation
        • Deliberation Approaches: combining preferences, sharing cognitions, cognitive centrality, shared representations (leniency effect)
        • Typically the majority verdict held by individuals prior to deliberation is the verdict the jury will reach holistically after deliberation (Bornstein & Green, 2011)
        • Group Think (Janis, 1972) jurors often supress views if the are not in line with the majority of the group, in favour of acheiving a whole group consensus
      • Specific Cases
        • Vicky Pyrce: judge dismissed the jury after they presented him with a list of questions asking about the court proceedings, the judge then deemed them incompetent
        • Joanne Frail; charged with contempt of court, for contacting the suspect involved in her case on facebook, breaking the no discussion rule
        • OJ Simpson attorney; asked for a race balance to be changed within the jury so as to not unfairly bias his defendant
  • Impartiality
    • Isolation
      • So members focus only on the evidence presented in court
  • Task: Determine verdict
    • Outcome: guilty, innocent or hung
  • Decision processes NOT recorded
  • USA System
    • Selection: defence can order a change of entire jury or individual jurors if they believe they may prejudice the suspect e.g. 12 white jurors and 1 black suspect
    • Jury may play a role in sentencing, particularly in damages cases
  • Deliberations ARE recorded
    • USA System
      • Selection: defence can order a change of entire jury or individual jurors if they believe they may prejudice the suspect e.g. 12 white jurors and 1 black suspect
      • Jury may play a role in sentencing, particularly in damages cases
  • Psychological analyses can be conducted to assess the impact of social and cognitive factors of jury decision making
    • Deliberations ARE recorded
    • Mock Jury Paradigm
      • Needed in the UK due to the legality of recording jury-decision processes therefore there is no means of data collection
      • Ppts serve as jurors and observations of decision making processes are taken, alongside verdict decisions
      • POSITIVEs: can be recorded and manipulated
        • NEGATIVEs: inadequate sampling, inadequate trail simulations, lack of deliberation, poor choice of DV (probability of verdict, and sentence allocation), lack of similarity between lab and field data, abstraction from reality, time constraints of trails are not reflected
    • POSITIVEs: can be recorded and manipulated
      • NEGATIVEs: inadequate sampling, inadequate trail simulations, lack of deliberation, poor choice of DV (probability of verdict, and sentence allocation), lack of similarity between lab and field data, abstraction from reality, time constraints of trails are not reflected

    Comments

    No comments have yet been made

    Similar All resources:

    See all All resources »See all resources »