NCJ Number
169168
Journal
Psychology Crime & Law Volume: 2 Issue: 4 Dated: (1996) Pages: 269-297
Date Published
1996
Length
29 pages
Annotation
Previous psycho-legal research has claimed the process of selecting death-qualified jurors for capital cases creates conviction-prone juries; studies on which these claims are based have employed simulation techniques to examine the relation between death penalty attitudes and verdict decisions, as well as the effect of the death-qualifying voir dire itself.
Abstract
Despite admitted weaknesses of simulations in general, this method was employed in the present research in order to draw conceptual comparisons to past research findings. Two experiments were designed to examine the issue of death qualification and biased juries in the context of other potentially influential factors, namely the strength of evidence and the degree of heinousness. Subjects included 198 undergraduate students at the University of California, San Diego. They were treated in groups of 12 to 15; each subject was randomly assigned to one of 12 conditions combining evidence, heinousness, and pre/post voir dire. Results failed to find any relationships between death penalty attitudes and verdict decisions that would be predicted from past research. Instead, subject decisions were influenced almost exclusively by the strength of evidence presented in the case. In light of these findings, the authors discuss the reliability and external validity of simulation research, potential problems caused by method-specific factors in determining the outcome of simulation methodology, the link between attitudes and behaviors, and the danger of premature and unwarranted application of simulation methodology to the legal system. Appendixes contain sample case summaries and death penalty attitude questionnaires. 40 references, 5 notes, 5 tables, and 1 figure