Contribution of Psychology to Legal Processes - An Analysis of Jury Studies (From Psychology, Law and Legal Processes, P 54-68, 1979, by D P Farrington, et al - See NCJ-70738)

• NCJ Number: 70741
• Author(s): A P Sealy
• Date Published: 1979
• Length: 15 pages
• Sale Source: Humanities Press, Inc.
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

Psychological research on agreement between judge and jury decisions about case evidence, jury size, pretrial processes, bias and prejudice in jurors' decisions, and rules of evidence is described and critiqued.

Abstract

Kalven and Zeisel's findings showed that judges agree with jury decisions about 70 percent of the time. Judges tended to be more severe (oriented toward conviction) than juries, although there is no way of knowing whether this is a general effect or merely descriptive of the last few decades of American justice. In research on the effect of jury size on decision outcomes, 'real life' studies tend to show very little difference between the outcomes of 6-and 12-person juries. Laboratory studies also tend to show small differences between the decisions of 6-and 12-preson juries. Pretrial decisionmaking processes are examined in a study simulating negotiations between parties in an effort to reach compromise. The studies reviewed which deal with bias and prejudice in jury decisionmaking showed no correlation between juror personality factors and verdicts. A study of variations in jurors' behavior as a consequence of variations in specific instruction about rules of evidence showed that such variations only arise through the mediation of jurors' expectations and the norms they respond to in the trial situation. Psychological research is generally concluded to render little to legal knowledge, partly because the theories are so weak and because they refer, on occasion, to immutable aspects of legal procedure. If such research is to have any impact in the future, simulations must approach real life and sampling procedures must be rigorous. The current methods for monitoring legal decisionmaking are inadequate and need coordination not only at the methodological level but at the more general level of what constitutes viable research in human affairs. Notes and references (about 30) are provided. For related documents, see NCJ 70738-40 and 70742-48.