Juries in Rape Trials: Balanced or Biased?

The most comprehensive mock trial research project on juror attitudes in rape cases has recently called into question the traditional perception of a criminal trial, that juries reach impartial verdicts based on a balanced assessment of the evidence. It will be recalled that in the UK no inquiries are permitted of jury verdicts, and the jury do not give reasons for their verdicts. The integrity of the jury’s decision-making process is presumed; to think otherwise is to undermine the system itself. But is the system working? Is it even capable of working? The new research, carried out by Psychologists Dominic Willmott and Professor Daniel Boduszek at the University of Huddersfield, and underpinned by legal guidance from criminal barrister Nigel Booth at St John’s Buildings in Manchester, suggests that we are right to be asking such awkward questions.</p

The English Jury on Trial

Within the English criminal justice system, trial by jury remains the gold standard means of delivering justice. The complex mix of evidence against those accused, alongside testimony, which challenges the police interpretation of the facts, is thought to be resolved simply through exposure to a jury of our peers. Of course in practice, things are unlikely to be so simple. In fact, discussing jury decisions with any police officer typically results in the same opinion being expressed: that the only predictable feature of the jury – is their unpredictability.</p

Is it Strange or is it Scary? Examining Salience and Arousal Explanations of the “Weapons Focus Effect”

There is a mass of research literature providing evidence for the ‘Weapon Focus’ effect which although traditionally accounted for in terms of an Arousal explanation, underpinned by Easterbrook’s (1959) Cue-Utilisation Hypothesis, recently research has favoured causation of such an effect in terms of a Salience explanation, understood in terms of Schematic memory structures. However, neither explanation as of yet has been able to conclusively disprove the other. In a study measuring the physiology and memory of participants, in conditions specifically designed to improve on past literatures methodological shortfalls, the effects of both explanations were meticulously separated out in an attempt to clearly investigate differences between them. Findings displayed that although differences emerged between memory scores and levels of physiological arousal between salience and arousal conditions, such were not to a significant extent. Methodological shortfalls within the current experiment and past research studies are thought to account for the failure to produce a weapons focus effect or further significant differences, however critical evaluation and deeper consideration of the current theoretical accounts identifies the inadequacy of these explanations, as well as future suggestions on how such might be improved

Mindfulness as a Psychological Approach to Managing Self-Harming Behaviours: Application and Review within Clinical Settings

Given the prevalence of suicide and self-harm throughout global societies, the need to more readily manage associated behaviours is of central importance. Particularly as in many countries and cultures harmful acts towards oneself remain a prosecutable crime if the person in crisis survives. Yet despite once constituting a novel approach, mindfulness techniques within clinical settings have rapidly grown in popularity and become an integral component of behavioural regulation and management. Recognising the potential benefits of mindful techniques including increased self-awareness and enhanced coping strategies, application of the technique has now been widely used as a tool to help individuals desist from engaging in deliberate self-harm and experiencing suicidal ideations. Addressing the need for a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of mindfulness applications within clinical settings as an approach to managing self-harming behaviours, the present exploration concludes mindfulness techniques are an appropriate intervention but ongoing evaluation is required to provide greater clarity in explaining the specific link to effective emotional management

An Examination of the Relationship between Juror Attitudes, Psychological Constructs, and Verdict Decisions within Rape Trials

For many, the English criminal justice system is considered to be among the best in the world. An important feature of the system’s success is thought to be the jury trial whereby in the most serious of cases, use of ordinary citizens to determine guilt is thought to make for fairer verdict outcomes. Yet despite being a more democratic process, questionable verdicts and low conviction rates for crimes such as rape have led many to question how impartial lay jurors are likely to be and to what extent preconceived biases may in fact be influencing verdict decisions. The overarching aim of the current thesis was thereby to examine the relationship between personal characteristics and juror decisions. Specifically, the role of psychopathic personality traits, rape attitudes, and juror demographics upon individual decision formation were examined. Another aim was to develop and validate a self-report measure of individual juror decision making, directly integrating theoretical features of the dominant model of jury decision making into an empirically testable scale. Tested separately between two independent samples within Experiment one, an opportunity sample of 324 university students comprised within 27 separate jury panels observed a videotaped mock rape trial before making individual and collective decisions. Within Experiment two, a systematic randomly selected sample of 100 community participants comprised within nine separate jury panels observed a live rape trial re-enactment before making individual and collective decisions. All participants completed demographic, attitudinal, and psychological self-report measures before the onset of the trial including; the Psychopathic Personality Trait Scale (PPTS), Acceptance of Modern Myths about Sexual Aggression (AMMSA), and the Juror Decision Scale (JDS). Results displayed evidence of a discernible relationship between juror’s psycho-social make-up and the verdict decisions made during trial. Latent profile analyses revealed psychopathic personality traits were significantly associated with verdict preferences in the community sample and regression analyses displayed elevated rape attitude scores were consistent predictors of Not Guilty verdict decisions across both samples, pre and post-deliberation. Confirmatory factorial techniques displayed a bifactor model with three meaningful factors while controlling for the general factor was the best representation of the JDS data, with the three subscales evidencing differential predictive validity with external variables. Finally, path analyses revealed the structure of the relationship between all variables and verdict decisions, providing further evidence for the role of juror characteristics. These findings strongly support the assertion that within rape trials, juror decisions are directly related with the attitudes and psychological constructs jurors bring to trial. Evidence that a juror’s psycho-social make-up affects their interpretation of the evidence and ultimately predisposes them towards particular verdict decisions, gives rise to the possibility of needing to screen biased individuals out the jury trial process in the future. Whether change occurs or not to such historical English jury procedures, what can no longer be simply dismissed, is the role of individual juror bias upon trial outcomes within rape

Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment in a patient's best interests: Australian judicial deliberations

•Intractable disputes about withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from adults who lack capacity are rare but challenging. Judicial resolution may be needed in some of these cases. •A central concept for judicial (and clinical) decision making in this area is a patient's “best interests”. Yet what this term means is contested. •There is an emerging Supreme Court jurisprudence that sheds light on when life-sustaining treatment will, or will not, be judged to be in a patient's best interests. •Treatment that is either futile or overly burdensome is not in a patient's best interests. Although courts will consider patient and family wishes, they have generally deferred to the views of medical practitioners about treatment decisions

The Impact of Rape Myth Education on Jury Decision-Making: A Systematic Review

A systematic review of research exploring the impact of providing rape myth countering information to mock-jurors was conducted. The primary aim of the review was to inform the development of an educational intervention for jurors to reduce potential bias in their decision-making based on belief in prevalent rape myths. In total, the following 12 databases were searched: British Education Index, CINAHL, Child Development and Adolescent Studies, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Educational Administration Abstracts, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycArticles, PsycInfo, PubMed, Scopus, and Social Care Online. The databases were filtered to return peer-reviewed publications, written in English, and published between 1980 and 2020. The search returned 5,093 potential articles. After duplicates were removed, the 2,676 remaining publications were screened. Only studies that presented rape myth countering information to participants within a mock-juror paradigm were included. Studies that did not compare an information condition to a no-information control condition were excluded, as were those which concerned male rape myths, given the focus on female rape myths beliefs in this review. Six studies were reviewed and were critically appraised in line with criteria based upon validity criteria utilized by Dinos et al. (2015). Some evidence emerged to suggest that the provision of judicial directions, expert witness testimony, and complainant statements regarding rape myths can impact upon jury decision-making, though findings were mixed overall. Study limitations regarding internal and external validity were frequently present. Recommendations regarding future research questions and methods are advanced, including that which can inform the development of an effective intervention for jurors.<br/

The Impact of Rape Myth Education on Jury Decision-Making: A Systematic Review

A systematic review of research exploring the impact of providing rape myth countering information to mock-jurors was conducted. The primary aim of the review was to inform the development of an educational intervention for jurors to reduce potential bias in their decision-making based on belief in prevalent rape myths. In total, the following 12 databases were searched: British Education Index, CINAHL, Child Development and Adolescent Studies, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Educational Administration Abstracts, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycArticles, PsycInfo, PubMed, Scopus, and Social Care Online. The databases were filtered to return peer-reviewed publications, written in English, and published between 1980 and 2020. The search returned 5,093 potential articles. After duplicates were removed, the 2,676 remaining publications were screened. Only studies that presented rape myth countering information to participants within a mock-juror paradigm were included. Studies that did not compare an information condition to a no-information control condition were excluded, as were those which concerned male rape myths, given the focus on female rape myths beliefs in this review. Six studies were reviewed and were critically appraised in line with criteria based upon validity criteria utilized by Dinos et al. (2015). Some evidence emerged to suggest that the provision of judicial directions, expert witness testimony, and complainant statements regarding rape myths can impact upon jury decision-making, though findings were mixed overall. Study limitations regarding internal and external validity were frequently present. Recommendations regarding future research questions and methods are advanced, including that which can inform the development of an effective intervention for jurors.<br/

“I thought I’m better off just trying to put this behind me” – a contemporary approach to understanding why women decide not to report sexual violence

Sexual offence disclosures are on the rise, thought to be the result of growing numbers of prosecutions brought against well-known public figures and mobilisation of movements such as #MeToo. Despite this, data continue to indicate that most victim-survivors will never report their abuse. This study aimed to explore why women continue to decide not to report sexual assault to the police. Secondary data were collated and analysed, pertaining to survivor accounts of sexual assault, posted in response to a prominent online video entitled ‘Women Tell Us Why They Didn’t Report Their Sexual Assault’. Thematic analysis revealed three main themes regarding why women chose not to report: (1) Lack of faith in the Criminal Justice System (encompassing two sub-themes, no evidence and traumatisation of reporting), (2) Self-blame, and (3) Knowing the perpetrator. Practical applications and reforms concerning empathic police responses and CJS improvements surrounding timeliness, case progression, and conviction rates are discussed