The effects of victim impact evidence on the verdicts and sentencing judgments of mock jurors

Journal of Offender Rehabilitation

Volumn 29, Issue 3-4, 1999, Pages 95-112

  Myers, Bryan ^a   Arbuthnot, Jack ^b  

^a Institute of Psychology Law and Public Policy   (United States)

^b OHIO UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Evidence strength; Impact on crime victim; Jury simulation; Severity of sentence

Indexed keywords

EID: 0013398037     PISSN: 10509674     EISSN: 15408558     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1300/J076v29n03_05     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Alicke, M.D., & Davis, T.L. (1989). The role of a posteriori victim information in judgments of blame and sanction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 362-377.
2. Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (1987).
3. Brammer, M.V. (1992). Case notes: Eighth amendment no longer bars victim impact statement admission in capital sentencing proceedings. Cincinnati Law Review, 61, 261-295.
4. Charrow, R.P., & Charrow, V.R. (1979). Making legal language understandable: A psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review, 79, 1306-1374.
5. Clore, G.L., Schwartz, N., & Conway, M. (1993). Affective causes and consequences of social information processing. In R.S. Wyer and T.K. Srull (Eds.) Handbook of Social Cognition, 2nd ed. (pp. 323-417).
6. Diamond, S.S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 561-571.
7. 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, 267-280.
8. Forgas, J.P. (1992). Affect in social judgments and decisions: A multi-process model. In M. Zanna (Ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 25, pp. 227-275). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
9. Forgas, J.P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 117, 39-66.
10. Greene, E., Koehring, H., & Quiat, M. (1998). Victim impact evidence in capital cases: Does the victim’s character matter? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 145-156.
11. Henderson, L.N. (1985). The wrongs of victim’s rights. Stanford Law Review, 37, 937-985.
12. Jones, C., & Aronson, E. (1973). Attributions of fault to a rape victim as a function of respectability of the victim. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 415-419.
13. Kassin, S.M., & Garfield, D.A. (1991). Blood and guts: General and trial-specific effects of videotaped crime scenes on mock jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1459-1472.
14. Keltner, D., Ellsworth, P.C., & Edwards, K. (1993). Beyond simple pessimism: Effects of sadness and anger on social perception. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 64, 740-752.
15. Kerr, N.L., & Kurtz, S.T. (1977). Effects of a victim’s suffering and respectability on mock juror judgments: Further evidence on the just world theory. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 8, 42-56.
16. Lerner, M. (1970). The desire for justice and reactions to victims. In J. Macaulay and L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior. New York: Academic Press.
17. Lerner, M., & Miller, D.T. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1030-1051.
18. Levy, J.H. (1993). Limiting victim impact evidence and argument after Payne v. Tennessee. Stanford Law Review, 45, 1027-1060.
19. Lloyd-Bostock, S. (1983). Attributions of cause and responsibility as social phenomena. In J. Jaspers, F.D. Fincham, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Attribution theory and research: Conceptual, developmental, and social dimensions (pp. 261-289). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
20. Luginbuhl, J., & Burkhead, M. (1995). Victim impact evidence in capital trial: Encouraging votes for death. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 1-16.
21. Myers, B., & Arbuthnot, J. (1997). Polygraph testimony and juror judgments: A comparison of the Guilty Knowledge Test and the Control Question Test. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1421-1433.
22. Myers, D.G., & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 602-627.
23. Payne v. Tennessee, 111 S. Ct. 2597 (1991).
24. Pickel, K.L. (1995). Inducing jurors to disregard inadmissible evidence: A legal explanation does not help. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 407-424.
25. Schuller, R.A. (1995). Expert evidence and hearsay: The influence of “secondhand” information on jurors’ decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 345-362.
26. Schwartz, N., & Clore, G.L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Information and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 513-523.
27. Scroggs, J.R. (1976). Penalties for rape as a function of victim provocativeness, damage, and resistance. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 4, 360-368.
28. Smith, M. (1966). Percy Foreman: Top trial lawyer. Life, 66, 92-101.
29. South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U.S. 805 (1989).
30. Spanos, N.P., Myers, B., DuBreuil, S., & Pawlak, A. (1992-93). The effects of eyewitness and polygraph testimony on the beliefs and verdicts of mock jurors. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 3, 42-51.
31. Talbert, P.A. (1988). The relevance of victim impact statements to the criminal sentencing decision. UCLA Law Review, 36, 199.
32. Tennessee Code Ann. 39-13-204 (1991).
33. Thomas, J. (1997, June 7). McVeigh’s lawyer cites Waco in urging jury to spare his life. The New York Times, A8.
34. Thompson, W.C., Fong, G.T., & Rosenhan, D.L. (1981). Inadmissible evidence and juror verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 453-463.
35. Thornton, B. (1977). Effect of rape victim’s attractiveness in a jury simulation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 666-669.
36. Walster, E. (1966). Assigning responsibility for an accident. Journal ofPersonal-ity and Social Psychology, 3, 73-79.
37. Weiten, W., & Diamond, S.S. (1979). A critical review of the jury simulation paradigm: The case of defendant characteristics. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 71-93.
38. Wells, G.L. (1992). Naked statistical evidence of liability: Is subjective probability enough? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 739-752.
39. Wolf, S., & Montgomery, D.A. (1977). Effects of inadmissible evidence and level of judicial admonishment to disregard on the judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 205-219