Moral foundations and juror verdict justifications.

The purpose of this study was to examine the ways in which mock jurors justified their verdict decisions using moral foundations language. Participants read a trial transcript describing a second-degree murder charge featuring an automatism plea (which negates the physical volition of a crime). They then provided a two-to-three sentence rationale for their verdict choice, which we coded for the contextually-valid presence of words from the Moral Foundations (MF) Dictionary. Mock jurors were most likely to use harm-related language in justifying murder votes. A qualitative description also revealed differences in the content of the justifications.

Quality-checking the new normal: trial modality in online jury decision-making research.

Objectives: We sought to examine differences between videotaped and written trial materials on verdicts, perceptions of trial parties, quality check outcomes, perceived salience of racial issues, and emotional states in a trial involving a Black or White defendant. Hypotheses: We predicted that verdicts and ratings of trial parties would be similar for those participants viewing a videotaped trial and those reading a written transcript. However, we suspected that emotional states might be heightened for those watching a video and that those reading transcripts would perform better on quality checks regarding trial content (but worse on those involving trial party characteristics, including defendant race). Method: Participants (N = 139 after removing those who did not meet our threshold for data quality) recruited from Amazon's Mechanical Turk were randomly assigned to watch a video or read a transcript of a trial involving an alleged murder of a police officer. They completed a questionnaire probing their verdict, perceptions of trial parties, perceived salience of racial issues, and emotional state, and responded to a series of quality checks. Results: Participants in the videotape condition performed significantly worse on quality checks than did those in the transcript condition. There were no significant differences between modalities in terms of verdict or perceived salience of racial issues. Some other differences emerged between conditions, however, with more positive perceptions of the pathologist and police officer in the transcript condition, and more negative emotion elicited by the trial involving a White defendant in the videotape condition only. Conclusions: There were no meaningful differences between videotaped and written trial materials in terms of outcome (verdict), but the presence of some trial party rating and emotional state differences stemming from modality epitomizes the internal/ecological validity trade-off in jury research. Our quality check results indicate that written transcripts may work better for obtaining valid data online. Regardless of modality, researchers must be diligent in crafting quality checks to ensure that participants are attending to the stimulus materials, particularly as more research shifts online.

What's in the Box? Punishment and Insanity in the Canadian Jury Deliberation Room.

In insanity cases, although the defendant's eventual punishment is legally irrelevant to the jury's decision, it may be psychologically relevant. In this three-part mixed-methods study, Canadian jury eligible participants (N = 83) read a fictional murder case involving an insanity claim, then took part in 45-min deliberations. Findings showed that mock jurors who were generally favourable towards punishment had a lower frequency of utterances that supported the Defence's case. A qualitative description of keyword flagged utterances also demonstrated that mock jurors relied on moral intuitions about authority, harm, and fairness in justifying their positions. These findings may have application in crafting effective Judge's instructions and lawyer's opening statements.

The influence of defendant race and mental disorder type on mock juror decision-making in insanity trials.

This study examined the joint influence of defendant race (Black/White) and mental disorder type (schizophrenia/depression) on mock juror decisions in a Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) case. We reasoned that unwillingness to vote for insanity would be more pronounced for a Black defendant with schizophrenia, given overlapping dangerousness and criminality stereotypes associated with those groups. Online community participants (N = 216) read a fictional second-degree murder case in which we varied mental disorder type and defendant race, then provided a verdict (guilty/NGRI) and answered questions regarding the trial. In line with hypotheses, participants were significantly more likely to vote guilty for a Black defendant with schizophrenia as compared to depression, but there were no significant differences for the White defendant. Results of this study suggest that bias in insanity trials can be exacerbated for a racialized defendant.

Creating the Punishment Orientation Questionnaire: An Item Response Theory Approach.

The purpose of these studies was to examine the principles people engage in when thinking about punishment, using a new measure (the Punishment Orientation Questionnaire [POQ]). Although traditional conceptualizations of punishment divide it into utilitarianism (e.g., deterrence) and retributivism ("eye for an eye"), we argue that a more useful metric of lay attitudes concerns orientation toward or away from punishment. After pilot testing and factor analysis, we used item response theory to assess four scales: prohibitive utilitarianism (limiting punishment based on utility), prohibitive retributivism (aversion to punishing innocent people), permissive utilitarianism (willingness to give strict punishment based on the benefits thereof), and permissive retributivism (desire for just deserts). The POQ showed good predictive validity for capital jury eligibility and sentencing recommendation in response to a death penalty trial stimulus. This study provides a better understanding of how classic punishment philosophies manifest among laypersons and contributes data outside of classical test theory.

A Case of Culture: Defendant Gender and Juror Decision-Making.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the use of cultural evidence toward an automatism defense, and whether such evidence would be detrimental or beneficial to a male versus a female defendant. U.S. participants ( N = 208), recruited via Amazon's Mechanical Turk, read a fictional spousal homicide case in which the defendant claimed to have blacked out during the crime. We manipulated the gender of the defendant and whether a culture-specific issue was claimed to have precipitated the defendant's blackout. ANOVAs revealed that cultural evidence positively affected perceived credibility for the female defendant, whereas there were no differences for the male defendant. Results also demonstrated that when cultural evidence was presented, the female defendant was seen as less in control of her actions than was the male defendant. Furthermore, lower credibility and higher perceived defendant control predicted harsher verdict decisions. This investigation may aid scholars in discussing concerns regarding a clash between multicultural and feminist objectives in the courtroom.

Putting negative attitudes on the agenda? Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act publicity and juror decision-making.

The current study examined the effect of publicity about Canada's recent Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) Reform Act - legislation surrounding accused in insanity cases that purportedly aims to enhance public safety - on juror decision-making. In line with agenda-setting theory, we expected that NCR Reform Act publicity might reinforce certain fears about the insanity defence, dependent on whether it had either a positive or negative evaluative slant. Contrary to previous work on the insanity defence, participants in this study generally favoured a NCR verdict. The evaluative slant of the NCR publicity had no effect on verdict decisions or insanity defence attitudes, but there was a significant difference in participants' evaluations of the fairness of the Reform Act, such that those exposed to a positive or control article viewed the act as fairer than those exposed to a negative article. This study may aid future researchers in evaluating potential unintended consequences of the NCR Reform Act.

Culture in the Courtroom: Ethnocentrism and Juror Decision-Making.

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether a culturally-based argument in a non-insane automatism defense would be detrimental or beneficial to the defendant. We also examined how juror ethnocentrism might affect perceptions of such a defense. Participants read a fictional filicide homicide case in which the defendant claimed to have blacked out during the crime; we manipulated whether culture was used as an explanation for what precipitated the defendant's blackout. We conducted path analyses to assess the role of ethnocentrism in predicting lower defendant credibility, and harsher verdict decisions. Results revealed an interaction between ethnocentrism and defense type, such that ethnocentrism related to lower perceived defendant credibility in the cultural condition, but not in the standard automatism condition. This study marks a starting point for empirically investigating the role of culture in the courtroom, which may aid scholars in discussing the merits of a standalone cultural defense.