Generic prejudice and the presumption of guilt in sex abuse trials

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 5-25

  Vidmar, Neil ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANADA; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; GUILT; HUMAN; SEXUAL ABUSE; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CANADA; CHILD; CHILD ABUSE, SEXUAL; FAMILY; FEMALE; GUILT; HUMANS; INCEST; MALE; PEER GROUP; PREJUDICE; QUESTIONNAIRES; RAPE;

EID: 0031052989     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1024861925699     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Abramson, J. (1994). We, the jury. New York: Basic Books.
2. Ajzen, A., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
3. Bagley, C. (1990). Child sexual abuse: The search for healing. London: Routledge.
4. Barnett, M., Tetrault, P., Esper, J., & Bistow, A. (1986). Similarity and empathy: The experience of rape. Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 47-49.
5. Barnett, M., Tetrault, P., & Masbad, I. (1987). Empathy with a rape victim: The role of similarity of experience. Violence and Victims, 2, 255-262.
6. Besser, R., & Kahn, A. (1990). Important strides made by the Supreme Court respecting children's evidence. Criminal Reports (3d), 79, 15-19.
7. Bottoms, B. (1993). Individual differences in perceptions of child sexual assault victims in G. S. Goodman & B. L. Bottoms (Eds.), Child victims, child witnesses: Understanding and improving children's eyewitness testimony (pp. 229-261). New York: Guilford.
8. Bottoms, B., & Goodman, G. (1994). Perceptions of children's credibility in sexual assault cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 702-732.
9. Campbell, D., & Fiske, D. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
10. Ceci, S., & Bruck, M. (1995). Jeopardy in the courtroom: A scientific analysis of children's testimony, Washington, DC: American Psychologicol Association.
11. Charrow, R., & Charrow, V. (1979). Making legal language understandable: A psychological study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review, 79, 1306-1374.
12. Congressional Quarterly (1993). Child sex abuse: Does the nation face an epidemic or a wave of hysteria? C Q Researcher, 3, (2), 25-48.
13. Cooper, A. (1994). The ABC's of challenge for cause in jury trials: To challenge or not to challenge and what to ask for if you get it. Criminal Law Quarterly, 37, 62-67.
14. Dietz, S. (1980). The rape victim in court The Rocky Mountain Psychologist, 1980, 1-17.
15. Dietz, S., Blackwell, K., Daley, P., & Bently, B. (1982). Measurement of empathy toward rape victims and rapists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 372-384.
16. Dietz, S., Littman, M., & Bentley, B. (1984). Attribution of responsibility for rape: The influence of observer empathy, victim resistance, and victim attractiveness. Sex Roles, 10, 261-280.
17. Doppelt, J. (1991). Generic prejudice: How drug war fervor threatens right to a fair trial. American University Law Review, 40, 821-836.
18. Eagly, A., & Chaiken. S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich.
19. Elwork, A., Sales. B., & Alfini, J. (1982). Making jury instructions understandable. Indianapolis: Bobs-Merrill.
20. Field, H. (1978). Juror background characteristics and attitudes toward rape. Law and Human Behavior, 2, 73-91.
21. Finkelhor, D. (1984). Child sexual abuse: New theory and research, New York: Free Press.
22. Fishman, M. (1978). Crime waves as ideology. Social Problems, 25, 531-543.
23. Gabora, N., Spanos, N., & Joab, A. (1993). The effects of complainant age and expert psychological testimony in a simulated child sexual abuse trial. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 103-119.
24. Greene. E. (1990). Media effects on jurors. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 439-450.
25. Green, E., & Wade, R. (1988). Of private talk and public print: General pre-trial publicity and juror decision-making. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2, 123-135.
26. Hans, V., & Dee, J. (1991). Media coverage of law. American Behavioral Scientist, 35, 136-149.
27. Hans, V., & Vidmar, N. (1986). Judging the jury. New York: Plenum.
28. Hastie, R., Penrod, S., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29. Johnson, C., & Haney, C. (1994). Felony voir dire: An exploratory study of its content and effect. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 487-506.
30. Kerr, N., Kramer, G., Carroll, J., & Alfini, J. (1991). On the effectiveness of voir dire in criminal cases with prejudicial pretrial publicity: An empirical study. The American University Law Review, 40, 665-701.
31. King, N. (1996). Juror delinquency in criminal trials in America, 1796-1996. Michigan Law Review, 94, 2673-2751.
32. Kinsman, G. (1987). The regulation of desire: Sexuality in Canada. Montréal: Black Rose Books.
33. Kovera, M. (1996, March). "If it does not fit, you must acquit": General pretrial publicity, rape, and evidence plausibility. Paper presented at the American Psychology-Law Society meetings, Hilton Head, SC.
34. Kovera, M., Levy, R., Borgida, E., & Penrod, S. (1994). Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 653-674.
35. Krahe, B. (1988). Victim and observer characteristics as determinants of responsibility attributions to victims of rape. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 50-58.
36. Kramer, G., Kerr, N., & Carroll, S. (1990). Pretrial publicity, judicial remedies, and jury bias. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 409-438.
37. Krauthamer, C. (1993). Defining deviancy up. The New Republic. Nov. 22, 20.
38. Kuhn, D., Welnstock, M., & Flaton, R. (1994). How well do jurors reason? Competence dimensions of individual variation in a juror reasoning task. Psychological Science, 5, 289-296.
39. Kutchinsky, B. (1992). The child sex abuse panic. Nordisk Sexoliga, 10, 30-34.
40. LaFave, W., & Israel, J. (1994). Criminal procedure: Criminal practice series, Vol. 3. St. Paul, MN: West.
41. Linz, D., & Penrod, S. (1992). Exploring the First and Sixth Amendments: Pre-trial publicity and jury decision making. In D. K. Kagehiro & W. S. Laufer (Eds.), Handbook of psychology and law (pp. 3-20). New York: Springer-Verlag.
42. Mú Min v. Virginia (1991), 111 S.Ct. 1899, 114 L. Ed. 2d 493.
43. Murphy v. Florida (1975), 421 U.S. 794, 955 S.Ct. 2031.
44. Nietzel, M., & Dillehay. R. (1982). The effects of variation in voir dire procedures in capital murder trials. Law and Human Behavior, 6, 1-13.
45. Ogloff, J., & Vidmar, N. (1994). The impact of pretrial publicity on jurors: A study to compare the relative effects of television and print media in a child sex abuse case. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 507-526.
46. Otto, A., Penrod, S., & Dexter, H. (1994). The biasing impact of pretrial publicity on juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 453-469.
47. Paciocco, D. (1994). Challenges for cause based on non-impartiality. The Sexual Offenses Law Reporter 25-27.
48. Paciocco, D. (1995). Challenges for cause: Cameron and sexual offense cases. The Sexual Offenses Law Reporter, 1, 10-12.
49. Patton v. Yount (1984), 467 U.S. 1025, 104 S.Ct. 2885.
50. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1991). A cognitive theory of juror decision making: The story model. Cardozo Law Review, 13, 519-577.
51. Polvi, N., Jack, L., Lyon, D., Laird, P., & Ogloff, J. (1996, March). Mock jurors' verdicts in a child sexual abuse case: The effects of pretrial publicity. Paper presented at the Biennial Convention of the American Psychology-Law Society, Hilton Head, S.C.
52. R. v. Chisholm (April 11, 1995), Ontario Court of Justice (General Division), (Central West Region), unreported.
53. R. v. Hubbert (1975), 29 C.C.C. (2d) 279 (C.A.), affirmed [1977] 2 S.C.R. 267, 33 C.C.C. (2d) 207.
54. R. v. McGregor (December, 1992), Ontario Court of Justice (General Division), unreported.
55. R. v. Morgan (1995), Ontario Court of Justice (General Division), (East Region: Lennox and Addington Counties). December 1995, unreported.
56. R. v. Musson (1995). Ontario Court of Justice (General Division), (Central West Region), unreported.
57. R. v. Parks (1993), 84 C.C.C. (3d) 353 (Ont. C.A.).
58. R. v. Sherratt (1991), 63 C.C.C. (3d) 193.
59. R. v. Theberge (May 25, 1994), Ontario Court of Justice, (Northeast Region), unreported.
60. R. v. Thomas (November 22, 1993), Ontario Court of Justice, (General Division), unreported
61. Roberts, J. (1994). Criminal justice processing of sexual assault cases. Juristat Service Bulletin, 14, No. 7, 1-20.
62. Roberts, J., & Doob, A. (1990). News media influences on public views of sentencing. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 451-468.
63. Schlesinger, B. (1985). Sexual abuse of children in the 1980s. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
64. Severance, L., & Loftus, E. (1982). Improving the ability of jurors to comprehend and apply criminal jury instructions. Law and Society Review, 17, 153-198.
65. Skurka, S. (1994, November). Challenge for cause: Questions allowed since A v. Parks. Paper presented at Criminal Lawyers Association, Toronto.
66. Stalans, L. (1993). Citizens' crime stereotypes biased recall, and punishment preference hi abstract cases: the educative role of interpersonal sources. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 451-470.
67. Stalans, L., & Diamond, S. (1990). Formation and change in lay evaluations of criminal sentencing: misperception and discontent. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 199-214.
68. Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General of Canada (1993). Review of the child sexual abuse provisions of the criminal code of the Canada evidence act (formerly Bill C-15). Ottawa: Solicitor General of Canada.
69. Tanovich, D. (1994). Rethinking jury selection: Challenges for cause and peremptory challenges. Criminal Reports (4th), 30, 310-321.
70. Tyler, T. (1993). Prospective jurors face questioning on bias. Toronto Star Nov. 30, 1993, pp. A1, A20.
71. Vidmar, N. (1996). Pretrial prejudice in Canada: A comparative perspective on the criminal jury. Judicature, 79, 76-102.
72. Vidmar, N., & Judson, J. (1981). The use of social science data in a change of venue application. Canadian Bar Review, 59, 76-102.
73. Vidmar, N., & Melnitzer, J. (1986). Juror prejudice: An empirical study of a challenge for cause. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 22, 487-501.
74. Wexler, R. (1990). Wounded innocents: The real victims in the war against child abuse. New York: Prometheus Books.
75. Wiener, R., Wiener, A., & Grisso, T. (1989). Empathy and biased assimulation of testimony in cases of alleged rape. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 343-355.