Gender effects on individual verdicts and on mock jury verdicts in a ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

.01), VF x Victim Behavior Contributory, VB (logl = 0.37, SE = 0.18, p [less than] .05), VB x Offender Fault, OF (logl = -0.46, SE = 0.20, p [less than] .05), and VB x Sentence (logl = 0.22, SE = 0. 11, p [less than] .05). As found previously (Fischer, 1991), uncertainty about a verdict increased the probability of a not guilty verdict (i.e., very certain = .03, fairly certain = .29, fairly uncertain = .42, and very uncertain = .50). The nature of the CER x VF (certainty of verdict by victim fault) interaction was that students voting guilty were most likely to blame the victim somewhat or not at all, and they were fairly- to very certain of their verdict. Students voting not guilty, on the other hand, were more likely to blame the victim more (i.e., somewhat or as much as the offender) and to be less certain (fairly certain to somewhat uncertain) of their verdict. To understand the VB x VF interaction note, first of all, that no student who judged the contribution of the victim's behavior to the alleged assault to be unimportant blamed the victim as much as, or more than the male. That is, such combinations simply did not occur. As noted previously, most students judged the victim's behavior to have been an important contributor to what happened. When these students also blamed the victim as much as, or more than the male, a not guilty verdict was very much more likely than when they blamed the victim somewhat or not at all. Indeed, among students who were "not sure," or who considered the victim's behavior an important contributor to the alleged assault, 68% voted not guilty if they also blamed the victim as much as, or more than the male, while only 20% voted not guilty if they judged the victim to be no more than somewhat at fault. The nature of the VB x OF (victim's behavior contributory by offender fault) interaction was as follows: The probability of blaming the offender totally was .80, and most others who voted guilty blamed the offender mostly. Most of these students judged the victim's behavior to have been a somewhat important, or even a very important contributor to what happened. Most students voting not guilty, on the other hand, judged the offender mostly at fault, rather than totally, and tended to judge the victim's behavior to have been a more important contributor to the alleged assault, (i.e., a very important, or, at least, a somewhat important contributor). In other words, not-guilty votes were associated with blaming the offender less than the victim's behavior was judged contributory, while guilty votes were associated with blaming the offender more, irrespective of how contributory victim's behavior was judged. The nature of the VB x SEN (victim behavior contributory by sentence) interaction was that students voting guilty tended to choose a 5-10 year sentence if they judged the victim's behavior to have been unimportant in the alleged assault, but chose a lighter sentence (i.e., 1-5 years) if they judged the victim's behavior to have been an important contributor. Students voting not-guilty, on the other hand, chose a lighter sentence, regardless of how contributory they judged the victim's behavior. DISCUSSION Even though substantially more females (86%) than males (66%) voted guilty individually, the number of guilty mock jury verdicts increased significantly and substantially only if the number of females on the jury were a huge majority (i.e., 10 females to 2 males) or if the jury was all female. Even in the latter two groups, however,
only 56% of mock jury verdicts were guilty verdicts. Though p = .56 was more than twice the mean percent guilty votes in other mock jury groups, taken together (p = .24), p = .56 is substantially less than expected frequencies, based on individual guilty and not guilty verdicts (i.e., .82 in the 10 females to 2 males group and .86 in the all female jury group). A likely reason is that, some students voting guilty, were not "very certain" of their verdict and thus could be influenced by other jurors, accordingly. Also, much more often than not, at least one of the persons voting not guilty, who were mostly male, held out, resulting in a hung jury. In addition to the finding that an overwhelming majority of women jurors increased the probability of a guilty mock jury verdict, another gender effect occurred when females were a majority of jurors. Specifically, when women jurors were in the majority, no "hung" jury had a majority of jurors voting not guilty. In contrast, all hung juries composed of six or fewer women jurors had at least one jury in which a majority voted not guilty. Thus, present findings suggest that a majority of women on a jury may obviate a not guilty jury verdict, at least, whereas a very large majority may be needed to increase the likelihood of a guilty jury verdict, even though these guilty verdicts still occur only a little more than half the time. Tending not to blame the victim and tending to blame the offender were stronger predictors of guilty verdicts than being female, because the former included most females, but was not restricted to them. The implication is that guilty jury verdicts in a rape trial are more likely if individual jurors tend not to blame the victim and tend to blame the offender. If such information is not available, however, then gender alone (i.e., at least half of the jury female) may decrease the likelihood of a not guilty verdict, but may not increase the likelihood of a guilty verdict, unless women are an overwhelming majority (i.e., 10 out of 12 or all 12). Of course, present findings and suggested interpretations may be limited to the rape scenario used here and, perhaps to similar scenarios. 2 The packet given to students (i.e., cover letter, trial transcript, medical report, judge's instructions to the jury, and Parts I and II of the trial survey) will be provided, upon request. REFERENCES Bocklin, A., Kilty, M. & Sheppard, J. A. (1993, April). Predictors and consequences of victim blaming. Paper presented at the meetings of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL. Deitz, S. R., Littman, M., & Bentley, B. J. (1984). Attribution of responsibility for rape: The influence of observer empathy, victim resistance, and victim attractiveness. Sex Roles, 10. Dillehay, R. C., & Nietzel, M. T. (1985). Juror experience and jury verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 179-191. Fischer, G. J. (1991). Cognitive predictors of not-guilty verdicts in a simulated
Page 1 and 2: Gender eff
Page 3 and 4: with a knife. Next, students read e
Page 5: would increase when females on a ju

Gender effects on individual verdicts and on mock jury verdicts in a ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?