Search

Historically, Black defendants have faced more severe sentences compared to White defendants. Research investigating this phenomenon in the paradigm of the insanity defense, found that Black defendants were acquitted as "not guilty by reason of insanity" (NGRI) significantly more often than White defendants (Poulson, 1990). In the current study, we investigate the influence of race of defendant and race of victim on judgments of NGRI in a 3 (race of victim: Black v. White v. Hispanic) x 3 (race of defendant: Black v. White v. Hispanic) between-subjects design. Our results indicated that a Hispanic defendant was acquitted NGRI more frequently and perceived as least dangerous compared to Black and White defendants. Assessments of future dangerousness were greatest when the defendant was Black and the victim was White. This finding provides supporting evidence of a crossrace effect within the context of criminal responsibility (Baldus et al., 1998). In addition, our findings offer an alternative to Poulson (1990), expanding this research to include Hispanic minorities as essential in this paradigm, and contribute to the research on the cross-race victim effect with juror decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Preventive detention laws are intended to protect the community while providing continuing offender rehabilitation. The concept of preventive detention frequently challenges the notion of 'just desert'. With respect to civil commitment, defendants are held involuntarily for treatment beyond their sentencing. In a criminal context, defendants may be held in lieu of a criminal conviction. In the current study, we assessed the public's level of tolerance for preventive detention. We were interested in evaluating whether and to what extent a "crime hierarchy" exists for preventive detention; i.e., a perception that certain crimes are deserving of preventive detention compared to others. The results indicate that societal justifications for such confinement may stem from inherent perceptions of dangerousness rather than adherence to specific sentencing goals, political ideology, or criminal offense. This study's findings suggest that the pubic is highly tolerant of the use of preventive detention, particularly with crimes viewed as abborent or dangerous. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the current study we examined how jurors utilize evidence of childhood abuse as a function of expert testimony and sentence recommendation. We also varied the specificity of instructional language in the context of mitigating circumstances. We predicted jurors who impose a life sentence would rate evidence of childhood abuse as significantly more important in determining sentence compared to jurors who impose the death penalty. Furthermore, we expected this effect to be moderated by expert testimony. Testimony of childhood abuse increased importance ratings of non-statutory mitigating circumstances. This effect was more evident for jurors who imposed a life sentence compared to those who imposed the death penalty. In addition, specific instructional language influenced how jurors considered circumstances related to the defendant's life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prosecutorial misconduct in the form of improper closing argument has been identified as a leading cause of unfairness in capital trials. the U.S. Supreme Court has indicated that arguments with the potential to unduly influence the jury should be clarified by a specific judicial instruction. The present study investigated the effectiveness of varying instructions on sentence recommendations and perceptions of improper prosecutor argument. Results indicated that the inclusion of a specific, cautionary instruction led to significantly less death penalty recommendations compared to a brief, general instruction. In addition, instructions minimized the importance of the misconduct statements on participants' sentence recommendations. Findings provide support for the validity of judicial instructions as a legal safeguard against prosecutorial misconduct in capital sentencing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, we used a fact pattern similar to the John Mark Karr scenario to examine perceptions of DNA and confession evidence. Specifically, we hypothesized that DNA evidence, confessor level of psychopathology, and presence or absence of Miranda protections would affect participants' perceptions of guilt and attitudes towards the interrogation process. One hundred nine undergraduates read a two-page summary based on John Mark Karr's confession. Summaries varied based on psychopathology of confessor, the presence or absence of DNA evidence, and the provision of Miranda warnings prior to confession. The DNA manipulation explained participants' attitudes towards specific aspects of the interrogation process. The importance of perceptions of forensic type evidence, specifically DNA, in our legal system is discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]