Someone who witnessed crime and is giving evidence.
1 of 31
Judge
Presides over court - in charge of sentencing.
2 of 31
Clerk
Transcribes court proceedings.
3 of 31
Prosecution lawyer
To persuade jury defendant is guilty.
4 of 31
Defence lawyer
Defendant is innocent until proven guilty.
5 of 31
Jury
12 of public, 18-70, discuss case and reach verdict.
6 of 31
Defendant
Person accused of crime.
7 of 31
Mock Jury
PP play part of jury and are presented with trial details. Jurors asked to make individual decisions and reach verdict then comment on level of confidence and appropriate punishment.
8 of 31
Shadow Jury
PP sit in public gallery of real case. Retire as group and discuss case and make group decision.
9 of 31
Mock Trial - Strengths
Provides ethical way of investigating variables in courtroom. Cost effective. More pp involved in comparison with shadow jury studies.
10 of 31
Mock Trial - Weaknesses
Manipulating variables to see effects on real juries is not practical. Short versions of recordings so doesn't show full trial and could miss key info - low ecological validity.
11 of 31
Penrod & Cutler (1995) - Aim
To see if witness confidence influences jury decision making.
12 of 31
Penrod & Cutler (1995) - Participants
Undergraduates, eligible and experience jurors.
13 of 31
Penrod & Cutler (1995) - Procedure
Video taped trail of robber shown. Witness testified that either 80% or 100% confident that correctly identified robber.
Evidence consistent in showing confidence is poor predictor of witness accuracy. Jurors trust undiminished even if judge advised jury to be wary of it.
16 of 31
Penrod & Cutler (1995) - Strengths
Expert witnesses used to give more reliable evidence. High application. Quantitative data so easily comparable.
17 of 31
Penrod & Cutler (1995) - Weaknesses
Difference in convictions is only slightly above chance. Only used undergraduates.
18 of 31
Sigall & Ostrove (1975) - Aim
To see if the attractiveness of the defendant influences jury decision making.
19 of 31
Sigall & Ostrove (1975) - Participants
120 college students (60M:60F). Randomly assigned.
20 of 31
Sigall & Ostrove (1975) - Procedure
PP read account of crime where defendant was female. IV - burglary/swindling and attractive/non-attractive.
Attractive people tend to be treated more generously as they are perceived as less dangerous & more virtuous.
23 of 31
Sigall & Ostrove (1975) - Strengths
Good controls all given same instructions & sentence. Good control comparison. PP less likely to guess aim. Good application.
24 of 31
Sigall & Ostrove (1975) - Weaknesses
Low ecological validity - real jury wouldn't experience normally. Juries only decide guilty not sentence.
25 of 31
Dixon et. al (2002) - Aim
To see if a 'Brummie' accent, race, and type of crime committed by suspect influence the jury's decision making.
26 of 31
Dixon et. al (2002) - Participants
119 White Undergraduate Students. 24M:95F. 25.2 years.
27 of 31
Dixon et. al (2002) - IV manipulation
Suspect spoke with standard accent and guise spoke with Brummie. Race was manipulated by varying racial cues and crime was accused differently. Inspector gave physical description.
28 of 31
Dixon et. al (2002) - Procedure
Presented to pp through two minute recorded conversation based on transcript of previous interview. PP completed seven point rating scale innocent to guilty.
29 of 31
Dixon et. al (2002) - Findings
Brummie accent/black suspect/blue collar crime highest ratings of guilt. Brummie more guilt than standard.
30 of 31
Dixon et. al (2002) - Conclusion
A range of social psychological factors can influence perception of a suspect’s guilt including accent, race and type of crime.
Comments
No comments have yet been made