The effects of defendant conduct on jury damage awards.

Laws of negligence dictate that jurors' decisions about damages be influenced by the severity of plaintiffs' injuries and not by the reprehensibility of defendants' conduct. The authors simulated an automobile negligence trial to assess whether jurors' decisions are in accord with those expectations. Conduct of the defendant and severity of the plaintiff's injuries were manipulated. Jurors listened to the evidence, completed predeliberation questionnaires, deliberated as a jury, and completed postdeliberation questionnaires. Severity of the plaintiff's injury had a strong impact on damage awards, but evidence related to the defendant's conduct was also influential, particularly when the plaintiff's injuries were mild. Here, jurors with any conduct-related evidence gave larger damage awards than jurors with no conduct-related evidence. Findings suggest an effect of defendant conduct on damage awards that may be mediated by judgments that the defendant was negligent. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

On the decision to testify in one's own behalf: Effects of withheld evidence, defendant's sexual preferences, and juror dogmatism on juridic decisions.

360 undergraduates high or low in dogmatism served as members of 6-person juries that assessed the culpability of a homosexual or heterosexual defendant in a murder trial. Defendants either (a) invoked the 5th Amendment in response to specific crime-relevant interrogation, (b) invoked the 5th Amendment by opting not to take the witness stand, or (c) took the stand and provided substantive answers for all crime-relevant interrogation. Results indicate that defendants who invoked the 5th Amendment (either on the stand or by declining to take the stand) were judged more likely to be guilty and more deserving of conviction than their counterparts who took the stand and answered all questions. As anticipated, juror dogmatism interacted with the defendant's sexual preferences to affect juridic decisions. However, the form of these interactions were contrary to expectations: High dogmatic jurors were no more punitive toward homosexual than heterosexual defendants, whereas jurors low in dogmatism were actually more lenient toward homosexual than heterosexual defendants. An explanation for the leniency of nondogmatic jurors toward homosexual defendants is proposed, and some implications of this line of reasoning for future research are discussed. (20 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"Shouldn't we consider...?": Jury discussions of forbidden topics and effects on damage awards.

The Federal Rules of Evidence prohibit disclosure to civil jurors of information that is arguably related to their decision-making (e.g., that either party is insured). The basis for so-called "blindfolding" is that a jury might be biased by this information to alter its appraisal of the evidence to reach a desired verdict. The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which mock juries in an automobile negligence case discuss several "silent factors" during deliberation (viz., insurance carried by the parties, the payment of attorneys' fees, and previous settlements between the plaintiff and other defendants) and the effects of such discussion on their compensatory damage award. We presented summaries of the evidence that varied in the severity of the plaintiff's injuries and the reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct. These variables influenced judgments of liability and damage awards. Analysis of the content of jury deliberations regarding damages showed that, although nearly all juries talked about silent factors, the size of their damage awards was unrelated to the frequency of these discussions and that such discussion accounted for only a very small portion of the variance in awards. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The meanings of shame: Implications for legal reform.

Describes and critiques the recent revival of interest in shame and shaming in various contexts, including criminal punishment such as sanctions requiring defendants to wear signs in public, or to otherwise advertise their convictions. The author takes issue with culture critics who claim that Americans have become shameless in ways that undermine important social and legal goals and warns against legal reforms based on their provocative but potentially destructive call to shame. The author argues that the culture critics tend to conflate shame, shaming, and shameful and explains why separation of these terms is crucial to meaningful discussions about whether Americans have "lost" their sense of shame or should be shamed for violating social or legal norms. The author then develops the psychological and the anthropological meanings of shame to evaluate all 3 terms, and speculates about the likely individual and social consequences of official shaming techniques. Finally, the author applies these insights to the use of shaming penalties by courts in criminal cases and concludes that American criminal courts may be ill-equipped to exploit offender or audience shame vulnerabilities in a way that makes practical or moral sense. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The effects of jury size, evidence complexity, and note taking on jury process and performance in a civil trial.

A total of 567 jury-eligible men and women who were assigned to 6- or 12-person juries saw a videotaped civil trial that contained either 1 or 4 plaintiffs. Half the juries took notes, whereas the remainder did not. Six-person juries that did not take notes awarded multiple plaintiffs the highest amounts of compensation. Six-person juries also gave the highest punitive damages when they did not take notes and judged multiple plaintiffs. The punitive awards of 6-person juries were highly variable compared with 12-person juries. Multiple plaintiffs also increased the unpredictability of jury punitive awards. Twelve-person juries deliberated longer, recalled more probative information, and relied less than 6-person juries on evaluative statements and nonprobative evidence. Limitations and implications are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

General and specific measures of attitudes toward early release of criminal offenders.

166 adults in Canada answered a set of global questions measuring attitudes toward the criminal justice system and made decisions about a set of hypothetical offenders applying for parole. The cases varied in type of offense, criminal history, and participation in rehabilitative programs while in prison. Many Ss supported parole in some circumstances (e.g., at least a majority of Ss chose some form of early release for each of the nonviolent offenders portrayed). Each manipulated variable had significant effects on Ss' willingness to recommend early release, showing that Ss' choices were not determined entirely by considerations of retribution or punishment. Global questions seemed to show much more punitive attitudes than did decisions in specific cases. (French abstract) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The effects of juror anonymity on jury verdicts

This study examined the effects of anonymity on jurors' verdicts and on jurors' feelings of accountability for their jury's verdicts. Twenty four-person anonymous juries and 20 four-person nonanonymous juries rendered individual and group verdicts for three student defendants charged with selling drugs on a school campus. When unanimous guilty verdicts were reached, juries imposed one of five punishments. Finally, jurors completed postdeliberation opinion and accountability questionnaires. As predicted, anonymous juries showed a higher rate of conviction (70%) than did nonanonymous juries (40%) when the evidence against the defendant was strong, supporting the hypothesis that anonymity would have a greater effect for situations in which there was relatively strong evidence of the defendant's guilt. Anonymous juries imposed the harshest punishment (expulsion) significantly more often than did nonanonymous juries. Contrary to predictions from differential self-awareness theory, anonymous juries did not report feeling less accountable than did nonanonymous juries. However, anonymous juries did see the process as significantly more fair than did identifiable juries.     

Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice.

For over 30 years, criminal justice policy has been dominated by a “get tough” approach to offenders. Increasing punitive measures have failed to reduce criminal recidivism and instead have led to a rapidly growing correctional system that has strained government budgets. The inability of reliance on official punishment to deter crime is understandable within the context of the psychology of human conduct. However, this knowledge was largely ignored in the quest for harsher punishment. A better option for dealing with crime is to place greater effort on the rehabilitation of offenders. In particular, programs that adhere to the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model have been shown to reduce offender recidivism by up to 35%. The model describes: a) who should receive services (moderate and higher risk cases), b) the appropriate targets for rehabilitation services (criminogenic needs), and c) the powerful influence strategies for reducing criminal behavior (cognitive social learning). Although the RNR model is well known in the correctional field it is less well known, but equally relevant, for forensic, clinical, and counseling psychology. The paper summarizes the empirical base to RNR along with implications for research, policy, and practice. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Competency to stand trial evaluations: a study of actual practice in two states

A criminal defendant must be competent to stand trial (CST) to safeguard the fundamental right to a fair trial. If there is a question as to a defendant's ability to assist in his or her own defense, a mental health professional is asked to perform a CST evaluation. Forensic assessment is a growing field, and CST is the most frequent evaluation requested. Over the years, forensic examiners' reports to the courts have been criticized for lack of relevance, insufficiency, and invading the province of the judge. If mental health professionals wish to advance the field of forensic assessment and respond to these criticisms, research on current practice with suggestions for advancement are necessary. A total of 66 CST reports conducted within the last five years in two states were compared to a proposed model for CST assessment. Results indicated that although forensic examiners are maintaining legal relevance, some CST reports may lack thoroughness and/or provide information that exceeds their role responsibilities. The findings support the need for the development of a standardized method of conducting and writing CST evaluations that should improve the quality of such reports.     

Mental Health Courts: A Misguided Attempt to Address the Criminal Justice System's Unfair Treatment of People With Mental Illnesses.

Mental health courts have proliferated in tandem with rising concerns about large numbers of people with mental illnesses cycling through the criminal justice system. Although the goals of these problem-solving courts are laudable, they have flourished because of systemic failures in public mental health and the criminal justice system. In addition to raising various civil rights and public policy concerns, these specialty courts are inherently flawed, unintentionally signaling an acceptance of the rates at which people with serious mental illnesses are entering the criminal justice system. Their very presence makes it more difficult to generate political will to address the root of the problem. Alternative, evidence-based programs address the same concerns without raising the same civil rights and policy questions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Capital punishment: Arguments for life and death.

Investigated the effects that argument position (for or against the death penalty and type of justification for punishment (deterrence, morality, rehabilitation, incapacitation, economic, and possibility of mistake) have on the sentence recommendations of 305 university students (aged 17–54 yrs) for a defendant found guilt of 1st-degree murder. Only those arguments in favor of the death penalty, based on retribution, economics, and impossibility of mistake were effective in influencing Ss to recommend that the accused be sentenced to death. None of the arguments used to persuade participants to choose a life sentence rather than a death sentence had any significant effect. Compared to Ss who recommended a life sentence, Ss who recommended the death penalty were found to have significantly higher scores on a measure of vengeance. (French abstract) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The competence of adolescents as trial defendants.

The significance of adolescents' capacities as defendants has increased as a consequence of new laws that promote the transfer of juveniles for trial in criminal court. Basic and applied developmental research is reviewed to examine evidence for adolescents' capacities to participate as defendants in their criminal court trials (defined in law as competence to stand trial). Research is reviewed in 4 areas: (a) adolescents' understanding of the legal process; (b) their appreciation of the significance of legal circumstances for their defense; (c) their ability to communicate information to counsel; and (d) their reasoning and judgment in making decisions as defendants. The results suggest a greater risk of impairments in trial competence abilities for adolescents than for adults. Possible ways to respond to adolescents who are less prepared to participate in trials are offered. Tentative recommendations are made for policy and law that would increase protections against trying adolescents in criminal court when their trial competence is impaired. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Hath he suffered enough? Effects of jury dogmatism, defendant similarity, and defendant's pretrial suffering on juridic decisions.

288 undergraduates were randomly assigned to 6-person juries (that were in turn assigned to 8 experimental conditions) to assess the culpability of a demographically similar or dissimilar defendant who had suffered pretrial injuries that were either relevant or irrelevant to the criminal incident in question. Although jury dogmatism had no effect on verdicts rendered, dogmatic juries sentenced more severely than did less dogmatic aggregations. However, this severity of sentencing effect was qualified by an interaction between jury dogmatism and relevance of suffering. Nondogmatic juries assigned shorter sentences to defendants whose suffering was crime relevant rather than crime irrelevant, apparently treating crime-relevant suffering as a partial restoration of equity for harmdoing. By contrast, dogmatic juries appeared to adopt a just-world orientation toward crime-relevant suffering by assigning longer sentences to defendants whose injuries were crime relevant as opposed to crime irrelevant. An information-utilization model is proposed to explain these results. (25 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A comparison of focused and standard cognitive therapy for panic disorder

A set of measures assessing abilities related to legal standards for competence in the adjudicative process were administered to mentally-disordered criminal defendants with diagnoses of schizophrenia, affective disorder, other psychiatric disorders, and to criminal defendants without diagnosed mental disorder. Mentally-disordered defendants were recruited from two groups: those who had been committed for restoration of competence and those who had been identified by jail personnel as mentally ill. Significant impairments in competence-related abilities were found for approximately half of the defendants with schizophrenia. Defendants with schizophrenia scored lower on measures of understanding, reasoning, and appreciation related to the adjudication process. The association between symptoms and competence-related abilities was explored within diagnostic groups. Conceptual disorganization was found to be inversely correlated with performance on all measures in both defendants with schizophrenia and those with affective disorders. For other psychotic symptoms, differing patterns of correlations were found in the two major diagnostic groups. The implications for policy designed to safeguard the rights of defendants to be tried while competent are discussed.     

Believability of expert and lay witnesses: Implications for trial consultation.

Attorneys are often skeptical, with good reason, about the extent to which research findings and psychological principles may apply to the members of their jury pool. It is important for attorneys as well as psychologists who provide consultation services to have access to base-rate opinions about the consultation issues. This article reports the results of a statewide telephone survey of 488 adult residents who answered questions about the believability of expert witnesses and criminal defendants who testify. The survey questions were designed to provide "local" base-rate data about issues that arise in 3 areas of consultation work with attorneys: public perceptions of witness preparation with criminal defendants, expectations of criminal defendant demeanor, and judgments with respect to expert-witness characteristics that might be associated with being a "hired gun." Implications for psychologists who work as trial consultants and expert witnesses are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Instructing jurors on general damages in personal injury cases: Problems and possibilities.

The authors consider instructions that courts do or could give to jurors to guide them in making awards for general damages in civil litigation. The authors review the nature and content of current instructions about the factors that should (or should not) affect jurors' awards, as well as the limited body of empirical research on the impact of these instructions. The most noteworthy feature of current instructions regarding damages is the lack of guidance they provide. The consequence appears to be awards that have considerable variability and that are influenced by improper considerations. The authors also discuss research on the effectiveness of alternative forms of jury instructions and trial procedures in preventing or reducing these problems. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Why do we punish?: Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment.

One popular justification for punishment is the just deserts rationale: A person deserves punishment proportionate to the moral wrong committed. A competing justification is the deterrence rationale: Punishing an offender reduces the frequency and likelihood of future offenses. The authors examined the motivation underlying laypeople's use of punishment for prototypical wrongs. Study 1 (N=336) revealed high sensitivity to factors uniquely associated with the just deserts perspective (e.g., offense seriousness, moral trespass) and insensitivity to factors associated with deterrence (e.g., likelihood of detection, offense frequency). Study 2 (N=329) confirmed the proposed model through structural equation modeling (SEM). Study 3 (N=351) revealed that despite strongly stated preferences for deterrence theory, individual sentencing decisions seemed driven exclusively by just deserts concerns. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Adjudicative competence: Evidence that impairment in “rational understanding” is taxonic.

In Dusky v. United States (1960), the U.S. Supreme Court articulated 3 abilities that determine a criminal defendant's competence to stand trial: He or she must be able to consult with counsel, have a factual understanding of the proceedings, and have a rational understanding of the proceedings. Although the legal determination of a defendant's competence involves a dichotomous judgment, the latent structures of the constructs that underlie the abilities articulated in Dusky are unknown. The current study focused on the rational understanding prong of the Dusky standard. We hypothesized that, whereas factual knowledge of the legal system and ability to assist counsel may fall on a continuum, plausible (i.e., rational) beliefs about legal proceedings may be dichotomous in nature. Taxometric analyses of the Appreciation scale of the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool—Criminal Adjudication, with a sample of 721 defendants, provided support for a taxonic structure. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Adjudicative competence in adolescent defendants: Judges' and defense attorneys' views of legal standards for adolescents in juvenile and criminal court.

Although courts have increasingly required that adolescent defendants be competent to proceed with adjudication, the legal standard for competence in juvenile court is not yet settled. As a first step toward obtaining greater clarification in legal standards, in this study the authors surveyed 338 judges and defense attorneys regarding their beliefs about competence standards. Judges and defense attorneys believe that it is particularly important for juveniles to have competence-related legal capacities, compared to adults. However, lower levels of competence were considered necessary for juveniles adjudicated in juvenile court than for juveniles adjudicated in criminal court. Developmental immaturity was seen as moderately important to juveniles' competence, although it was rated as less important than mental disorders or cognitive impairments. Furthermore, relatively few judges appear to agree that adolescents should be found incompetent on the basis of developmental immaturity alone. The implications of these findings are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)