Crime psych-4- psych and the courtroom

Psychology and the courtroom (cognitive)

The persuasion of juries by witnesses and defendant characteristics:

In the UK we have an adversarial system in jury trials. A jury is made up of 12 members of the public between the ages of 18-70 who are selected through the electoral register. 

Psychological research has shown that jurors' decisions can be influenced not only by the evidence but also by other variables.

This may be; age, gender, race, social class/status, confidence, appearance, tattoos, attractiveness, dress, accent.

Researchers can investigate these factors in a number of ways; real trials, mock trials, shadow juries.

Researchers cannot manipulate variables in real trials/ with real juries because it interferes with legal processes. Therefore, mock trials are often used where ps play the role of jurors. These are much shorter in duration than a real trial (1-3 hours) and usually involve the jurors making a decision about the verdict after reading an account or watching/hearing a recording.

Advantages of using mock trials:

• Ethical
• Cost-effective compared to shadow jury
• Allow for more ps to partake than a shadow jury 
• Higher control over IV and removal of extraneous variables.

Disadvantages of using mock trials:

• Lack of eco v- jurors know that this is not a real trial and that the freedom of the defendant does not rest on their decision, real trials last much longer, real jurors don't give individual verdicts, real juries discuss the case, real juries do not decide on sentencing nor have to explain their verdict nor give an assessment of their confidence in their decision.
• Often made up of undergraduate students- small age range and educational/socio-economic background
• Students often volunteer to take part whereas real jurors do not volunteer and can often be reluctant to serve on a jury at all and only do so because they have no choice. 

Attractiveness:

• Stewart (1985) 

Hypothesis: There will be a neg correlation between the attractiveness of the defendant and the severity of the punishment.

RM- Naturalistic obs (real trials) rating form (physical attractiveness, neatness, cleanliness, quality of dress), 2 observers min per trial.

Conclusions:

1) No correlation between race and attractiveness and a high inter-rater reliability (0.78)

2) Attractiveness scores negatively correlated with punitiveness 

3) Posture also showed a neg correlation

• Sigall & Ostrove (1975)

RM- Expt, shown a photo of a defendant and asked to suggest a sentence for fraud/burglary. Photo was either attractive or not. 

Conclusions:

1) Ps suggested sig longer sentences for burglary when the photo was of a physically unattractive defendant, but the reverse effects when the crime was fraud.

Why does attractiveness have one effect for one type of crime but the opposite effect for another type of crime?

- Generally attractive people are treated more generously as they are perceived as less dangerous and more virtuous. However, the jury is more condemning of a defendant who has used their 'gift' of beauty for ill-gotten gain. Attractive people who 'misuse' or take adv of their beauty (e.g. in confidence tricks) are perceived as being…