Likelihood of Using Drug Courts: Predictions Using Procedural Justice and the Theory of Planned Behavior

The current research compares two theoretical models borrowed from social psychology (theory of planned behavior and procedural justice) to predict intentions to make use of a drug court. Medicaid-eligible substance users answered a number of questions regarding their intentions to use a drug court in the future, including items from planned behavior and procedural justice scales. When procedural justice was considered alone, only trustworthiness predicted intention to use drug courts. When planned behavior was considered alone, only deliberative attitudes predicted the intention. After combining the two models, deliberative attitudes from the theory of planned behavior were the only significant predictor of likelihood to make use of a drug court. Recommendations for future study of this area center on conceptualization of procedural justice and the use of alternative samples

The influence of defendant body size and defendant gender on mock juror decision-making

Objectives: These studies were designed to extend the limited psycho-legal literature on weight bias in juror decision-making. Methods: In two studies, students (N = 208) and online community participants (N = 199) read a fabricated theft trial transcript in which we varied the defendant’s weight (overweight, average weight, underweight) and gender (man, woman). Participants then made verdict decisions and completed a measure of positive attitudes toward obesity. Results: In Study 1, the overweight condition featured a fairly even verdict split, while the underweight and average weight conditions featured a higher proportion of guilty verdicts than not guilty verdicts. In Study 2, among those with more positive attitudes toward obesity, the average weight condition yielded a greater likelihood of a guilty verdict as compared to the underweight condition. Thus, Study 1 revealed relative leniency toward a defendant who was overweight, whereas Study 2 revealed more lenient decisions for a defendant who was underweight (as a function of attitudes). There were no significant gender effects. Conclusions: Findings are inconsistent with bias against obesity shown in the extant literature, which might be attributable to idiosyncrasies of the case material used. In general, results indicate that defendant weight is a source of bias among mock jurors. Future researchers examining weight bias in the courtroom should consider the potential effects of crime congruency by exploring defendant weight in different types of criminal cases

Likelihood of Using Drug Courts: Predictions Using Procedural Justice and the Theory of Planned Behavior

The current research compares two theoretical models borrowed from social psychology (theory of planned behavior and procedural justice) to predict intentions to make use of a drug court. Medicaid-eligible substance users answered a number of questions regarding their intentions to use a drug court in the future, including items from planned behavior and procedural justice scales. When procedural justice was considered alone, only trustworthiness predicted intention to use drug courts. When planned behavior was considered alone, only deliberative attitudes predicted the intention. After combining the two models, deliberative attitudes from the theory of planned behavior were the only significant predictor of likelihood to make use of a drug court. Recommendations for future study of this area center on conceptualization of procedural justice and the use of alternative samples

Double jeopardy: Disabled and black disability, race, and their interaction

This dissertation examines the disparity between public perceptions of disability and the definition used in pre-2009 ADA jurisprudence, and the influence of race on decisions in disability discrimination cases. Under its original formulation, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) definition of disability was vague and open to interpretation. With courts using largely unguided discretion, mental impairments rarely qualified as disabilities, and disagreements emerged as to whether impairments should be considered in their correct or uncorrected state. The Supreme Court addressed the latter issue in Sutton v. United Airlines by ruling that impairments must be considered in their corrected state, resulting in more consistent decisions but possibly creating a gap between ADA jurisprudence and public perceptions of disability. Study 1 examined this issue by manipulating impairment type (physical, mental), impairment severity (low, high) and mitigating measures (present, absent) in a failure-to-hire employment discrimination case. Results demonstrated that the public holds a very different view than did early ADA jurisprudence, in that participants were more certain of the complainant’s status as disabled when he was mentally rather than physically impaired, and were more likely to view his case dismissal as unfair. Further, participants did not differentiate between complainants who did or did not make use of corrective measures. Recent amendments to the ADA may address these issues, in that the Act now states that mitigating measures must not be considered when evaluating impairments, and that episodic impairments can be regarded as disabilities, increasing the likelihood that mental impairments will qualify. Study 2 examined the influence of race on disability decisions. Aversive racism theory predicts that race may influence decisions when situations are more ambiguous, allowing for justifications based on factors other than race. This study examined this issue by manipulating impairment type and severity as in Study 1, and by manipulating success of mitigating measures (limited, near-total) and complainant race (Black, White). Results demonstrated that participants were more certain of discrimination against the complainant when he was White, and also perceived his case dismissal as less fair, indicating direct influences of race on decision-making in disability discrimination cases

The influence of witness intoxication, witness race, and defendant race on mock juror decision making

Negative stereotypes about Indigenous people concerning alcoholism and criminality permeate Canadian society. This study primarily explores whether racial bias affects mock jurors’ perceptions of Indigenous eyewitnesses, particularly when the eyewitness was intoxicated at the time of the crime. Participants read a trial transcript in which eyewitness intoxication and both eyewitness and defendant race (Indigenous/white) were manipulated, then provided a verdict and responded to a series of questions about the eyewitness. We found an indirect effect of eyewitness intoxication on verdict, operating through perceived eyewitness accuracy, such that intoxicated eyewitnesses were associated with significantly fewer convictions. Participants also rated Indigenous eyewitnesses as more accurate than white eyewitnesses. Although there were no significant main effects of defendant or eyewitness race on verdicts, we did observe a significant indirect effect of eyewitness race: Indigenous eyewitnesses were associated with more convictions via perceived accuracy. These effects run contrary to some previous literature and, coupled with our findings regarding criminality stereotypes, suggest that prospective jurors may be becoming aware of systemic bias facing Indigenous peoples. This study adds to the growing body of research investigating prospective jurors’ decision making in Canada

The Combined Effect of Defendant Race and Alleged Gang Affiliation on Mock Juror Decision-Making

Previous research has investigated the influence of several defendant characteristics on mock juror decision-making, but to date, no published research has examined the effect of a defendant's alleged gang membership on verdict decisions. The current study sought to investigate this effect, as well as how it might interact with the defendant's race. One hundred and five participants read a trial transcript involving a robbery case, in which the defendant was depicted as White, Black, or Aboriginal Canadian. In half of the transcripts, the arresting officer testified that the defendant was a known member of a gang. Results demonstrated that in general, participants judged the defendant more harshly when he was a gang member, but only when he was Black. When the defendant was depicted as White, no differences emerged as a function of alleged gang membership. Most interestingly, when the defendant was Aboriginal Canadian, participants treated him less harshly when he was an alleged gang member than when no such allegation was made

Investigating Race Salience, Defendant Race, and Victim Race Effects on Mock Juror Decision-Making in Canada

The purpose of this study was to test whether defendant and victim race (White, Black, Aboriginal Canadian) would jointly influence mock juror decision-making, and to test the effectiveness of making race a salient issue in mitigating bias. Participants (N = 558) read a robbery trial transcript in which race salience was experimentally manipulated via the defense’s closing argument (with defendant and victim race manipulated via photographs), then provided verdicts and indicated whether they perceived race to be a salient issue in the trial. Results demonstrated differential victim and defendant race effects as a function of experimental race salience manipulation and mock juror race, as well as effects for participants’ self-reported perception that race was a relevant feature of the trial. Overall, these findings suggest important differences in the impact of the race salience technique as a function of victim race

Defendant mental illness and juror decision-making: A comparison of sample types

Two studies were conducted with separate student and community samples to explore the effect of sample types and the influence of defendant mental illness on juror decision-making. Following the completion of a pre-trial questionnaire in which jurors' attitudes towards mental illness were assessed, participants were provided with a robbery trial transcript, wherein the mental illness of the defendant was manipulated. Participants then answered a questionnaire to assess their knowledge of the scenario, their verdict, verdict confidence, and sentencing decision. Limited relationships were found between the variables in both Study 1 and Study 2. Neither attitude ratings nor mental illness type had a significant effect on juror decisions. Samples differed in terms of the paths through which juror decisions were achieved. Findings suggest that sample type may be particularly relevant for this topic of study, and that future research is required on legal proceedings for cases involving a defendant with a mental illness

Creating the Punishment Orientation Questionnaire: An Item Response Theory Approach

The purpose of these studies was to examine the principles people engage in when thinking about punishment, using a new measure (the Punishment Orientation Questionnaire [POQ]). Although traditional conceptualizations of punishment divide it into utilitarianism (e.g., deterrence) and retributivism (“eye for an eye”), we argue that a more useful metric of lay attitudes concerns orientation toward or away from punishment. After pilot testing and factor analysis, we used item response theory to assess four scales: prohibitive utilitarianism (limiting punishment based on utility), prohibitive retributivism (aversion to punishing innocent people), permissive utilitarianism (willingness to give strict punishment based on the benefits thereof), and permissive retributivism (desire for just deserts). The POQ showed good predictive validity for capital jury eligibility and sentencing recommendation in response to a death penalty trial stimulus. This study provides a better understanding of how classic punishment philosophies manifest among laypersons and contributes data outside of classical test theory

Secondary Confessions: The Influence (or Lack Thereof) of Incentive Size and Scientific Expert Testimony on Jurors' Perceptions of Informant Testimony

The goal of this research was to determine whether the size of the incentive (none, small, medium, or large, in terms of sentence reduction) a jailhouse informant receives for testifying, as well as scientific expert testimony regarding the fundamental attribution error, would influence mock juror decisionmaking in a criminal trial involving a secondary confession. Participants read a murder trial transcript involving informant testimony in which incentive size and expert testimony were manipulated and then provided verdict judgments, made attributions for the informant's decision to testify, and rated the informant and expert on a number of dimensions. Neither expert testimony nor size of incentive had a direct influence on verdicts. However, contrary to previous research on the influence of incentives on jurors' perceptions of secondary confessions, the presence of an incentive did influence verdict decisions, informant ratings, and attributional responses. Results imply that jury-eligible community members may be becoming aware of the issues with informant testimony as a funct