social psychology & law. social psychology and the law psychology in the courtroom pre-trial ...
TRANSCRIPT
Social Psychology and the Law Psychology in the Courtroom
Pre-trial
Courtroom Drama
Jury Deliberation
Post-conviction
Pre Trial: Jury Selection
In US, you have right to an “impartial” jury Is that right upheld? Jury selection is 3-step process
1.) Master list of eligible jurors
2.) Random sample taken from master list – these people are called for jury duty
3.) Voir dire – pretrial interview by judge and lawyers, to omit “biased” jurors
Jury Selection: Voir dire
Voir dire: Does it work? Peremptory challenges – lawyers can reject certain # of
jurors who seem unbiased without reasons Trial lawyers act as intuitive psychologists For example, the stereotypes are that:
Athletes are unsympathetic to fragile or injured victims Engineers are unemotional Men with beards resist authority
Jury Selection: Voir dire
Are these stereotypes accurate? Not really: For example, contrary to lawyer’s beliefs, people are
harsher toward same-race defendants when evidence is strong (Kerr et al., 1995)
In general, lawyers are not good at predicting jury voting by intuition (Olczak et al., 1991) or question-asking (Kerr et al., 1991)
“Scientific” Jury Selection
Hiring professional jury consultants to identify ideal jurors
Use survey methods that yield correlations between demographics and trial-relevant attitudes E.g, In OJ Simpson trial, black women were
identified as most sympathetic to OJ
Lawyers than ask potential jurors targeted personal questions to identify the “right” jurors
Jury Selection: Death Qualification Used in
capital cases Jury prescribes sentencing
Judge can exclude all potential jurors who say they are against the death penalty.
Does this tip the balance toward the death penalty? Yes! Jurors who are not opposed to the death penalty:
More likely to vote guilty in murder trial (Cowan et al., 1986) More concerned about crime, trustful of police, cynical toward defense
lawyers, etc. The death qualification process itself conveys that the defendant is
guilty!
Jury Selection: Death Qualification Lockhardt v McCree (1986) – Supreme Court case
questioning whether death row inmates deserved new trial because of biases in death qualification
APA presented exhaustive review of evidence Supreme Court dismissed the evidence, ruling that death
qualification does not bias juries.
Nonevidentiary Influences: Pretrial Publicity Does exposure to pretrial news stories corrupt
prospective jurors? Why is pretrial publicity potentially dangerous?
Contaminating Effects of Pretrial Publicity
From N.I. Kerr, G.P. Kramer, J.S. Carroll and J.J. Alfinin, (1982), "On the Effectiveness of Voir Dire in Criminal Cases with Prejudicial Pretrial Publicity: An Empirical Study," American University Law Review, 40, pp. 665-701. Reprinted with permission.
Nonevidentiary Influences: Inadmissible Testimony Why do people not always follow a judge’s order to
disregard inadmissible evidence? Added instruction draws attention Judge’s instruction to disregard may arouse
reactance. Hard to ignore information that seems relevant to the
case.
The Risk of False Confessions
May confess merely to escape a bad situation. Internalization can lead innocent suspects to believe they
might be guilty of the crime. Factors that increase the risk:
Vulnerability Suspect who lacks clear memory of the event in
question False incriminating evidence
Presentation of false evidence
False Confessions(Kassin & Kiechel) Ps worked on a computer task.
Told: “DO NOT hit alt key bc computer will crash!”
Vulnerability manipulation Task (½ very slow-paced vs. ½ very fast-pace)
Incriminating evidence Evidence offered by confederate (½ yes vs. ½ no)
Dependent variables: % who signed a confession % who admitted guilt privately
False Confessions(Kassin & Kiechel)
0
1020
3040
5060
7080
90100
% w
ho
con
fess
ed
No evidence (False) evidence
Slow taskFast task
False Confessions(Kassin & Kiechel)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
% w
ho
ad
mit
ted
gu
ilt
pri
va
tely
No evidence (False) evidence
Slow taskFast task
Okay, but How Much Is a Confession Worth?(Kassin & Sukel)
Mock jurors read a murder trial1/3 no confession in trial 1/3 low-pressure confession in trial1/3 high-pressure confession in trial
Dependent variable:% of participants convicting the defendant
Okay, but How Much Is a Confession Worth?(Kassin & Sukel)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
% o
f p
art
icip
an
ts c
on
vic
tin
g
No confession Low pressure High pressure
Okay, but How Much Is a Confession Worth?(Kassin & Sukel)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
% o
f p
art
icip
an
ts c
on
vic
tin
g
No confession Low pressure High pressure
Answer: a lot!!!
Why? An Attributional Dilemma
Juries are powerfully influenced by evidence of a confession, even if the confession was coerced. FAE revisited.
A jury’s reaction can be influenced by how confession evidence is presented.
Perceptual Salience
Actor A
Actor B
Whichever actor they faced was the one the observers judged to be the Whichever actor they faced was the one the observers judged to be the more dominant member of the dyadmore dominant member of the dyad
Confessions & Perceptual Salience(Lassister & colleagues)
Taped mock confessions from 3 different angles1/3 only suspect was visible1/3 only interrogator was visible1/3 both were visible
Ps who only saw suspects saw the situation as less coercive than did others
ActualEvents
Acquisition:Info the person
perceives
Storage:Info the person
stores in memory
Retrieval: Info the person
retrieves at a later time
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
EYEWITNESSESThree chances to for errors
Eyewitness Testimony: Acquisition Refers to the witness’s perceptions at the time of the
event in question. Factors influencing acquisition:
One’s emotional state Weapon-focus effect Cross-race identification bias
Eyewitnesses: Acquisition Accuracy of Eyewitness Identification
Phase 1 Staged a theft; Ps (“eyewitnesses”) pick out “thief” from
photos Poor viewing condition – “thief” wore cap; present for 12 seconds Moderate viewing condition -- “thief” revealed more of his face;
present for 12 seconds Good viewing condition -- “thief” did not wear cap; present for 20
seconds
Phase 2 Eyewitnesses were questioned & session videotaped New Ps (“jurors”) watched videotaped session Jurors rated extent to which they believed the witness correctly identified the thief
20
40
60
80
100
Poor Moderate Good
Jurors whothoughtwitness madecorrectidentification
Witnesseswho correctlyidentifiedthief
Viewing Conditions
Per
cent
age
Accuracy of Eyewitness Identification
Eyewitness Testimony: Storage
Refers to getting the information into memory to avoid forgetting.
Memory for faces and events tends to decline over time. But, not all memories fade over time.
However, the “purity” of the memory can be influenced by postevent information.
Eyewitness Testimony: Storage (cont.)
Misinformation Effect: The tendency for false postevent information to become integrated into people’s memory of an event.
If adults can be misled by postevent information, what about children? Repetition, misinformation, and leading questions can
bias a child’s report, particularly for preschoolers.
Eyewitness: Storage Stage(Loftus & Palmer)
About how fast were the cars going when
they ____ each other?
“smashed”
“hit”
“contacted”
40.8 mph
34.0 mph30.8 mph
Eyewitness: Storage Stage(Loftus & Palmer)
About how fast were the cars going when
they ____ each other?
“smashed”
“hit”
“contacted”
40.8 mph
34.0 mph30.8 mph
32% Misremembered Broken Glass in “Smashed” Condition
Eyewitness Testimony: Retrieval Refers to pulling the information out of storage when
needed. Factors affecting identification performance:
Lineup construction Lineup instructions to the witness Format of the lineup Familiarity-induced biases
Eyewitness: Retrieval StageLineups (Malpass & Devine)
Ps saw a staged act of vandalism, after which they attended a lineupInstructions received:
½ biased (led to believe culprit was present) ½ unbiased (may or may not be present)
Culprit (½ was present vs. ½ was absent) Dependent variable:
% of false identifications
Lineup Identifications(Malpass & Devine)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
% o
f fa
lse
iden
tifi
cati
on
s
Culprit present Culprit absent
UnbiasedBiased
Child Eyewitnesses(Leichtman & Ceci)
Pre-school kids told story about clumsy man, Sam Stone, who broke things
Month later, man visited class for a day Next day, teacher points out ripped book and soiled teddy bear Conditions:
Control or Asked suggestive questions
DVs and results: 72% falsely identified perpetrator 45% said they saw him do it
Real world: Wee Care Nursery School in NJ (1988)
How lineups should be conducted
4-8 innocent “foils” Nothing should make accused person
stand out or look different – it greatly increases chance s/he will be selected
One at a time (“show-up”)
Jury Deliberation: Leadership in the Jury Room A person is more likely to be chosen as
foreperson if the person: Is of higher occupational status or has prior jury
experience. Is a male. Is the first person who speaks. Is sitting at the head of a rectangular table.
Forepersons act more as the jury’s moderator rather than its leader.
Jury Deliberation:A Leniency Bias in the Jury
Final Jury Verdicts (%)
Initial Votes Conviction AcquittalHung
6-0 (guilty-not) 100 0 0
5-1 78 7 16
4-2 44 26 30
3-3 9 51 40
2-4 4 79 17
1-5 0 93 7
0-6 0 100 0