Who is the victim anyway? The effects of bystander victim impact statements on mock juror sentencing decisions

Violence and Victims

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 357-374

  McGowan, Mila Green ^a   Myers, Bryan ^b  

^a ALLIANT INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA WILMINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; DECISION MAKING; EMPLOYEE; FEMALE; FIRE PROTECTION; HOMICIDE; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; MALE; PERCEPTION; RATING SCALE; VICTIM; WEAPON; WITNESS; WORKPLACE;

EID: 10644225256     PISSN: 08866708     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1891/vivi.19.3.357.65763     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Ashworth, A. (1993). Victim impact statements and sentencing. Criminal Law Review, 39, 498-509,
2. Birnhaum, M., & Stegner, S. (1979), Source credibility in social judgment: Bias, expertise and the judge's point of view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 48-74.
3. Blume, J, H, (2003). Ten years of Payne: Victim impact evidence in capital cases. Cornell Law Review, 88, 257-281.
4. Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (1987).
5. Bornstein, B. H. (1999), The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-92.
6. Brehm, J, W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.
7. Cowan, C. L., Thompson, W, C., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1984). The effects of death qualification on jurors' predisposition to convict, and on the quality of deliberation. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 53-79.
8. Engle, M. (2000). Due process limitations on victim impact evidence. Capital Defense Journal, 13, 55.
9. Erez, E., & Rogers, L. (1999). Victim impact statements and sentencing outcomes and processes: The perspective of legal professionals. British Journal of Criminology, 39(2), 216-239.
10. Feigenson, N. (2000). Legal blame: How jurors think about accidents. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
11. Flamm, J. D. (1999). Due process on the "uncharted sea of irrelevance": Limiting the presence of victim impact evidence at capital sentencing after Payne v. Tennessee. Washington and Lee Law Review, 56(1), 295-325.
12. Greene, E. (1999). The many guises of victim impact evidence and effects on jurors' judgments. Psychology, Crime and Law, 5, 331-348.
13. 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.
14. Greenberg, J. D. (2000). Is Payne defensible?: The constitutionality of admitting victim-impact evidence at capital sentencing hearings. Indiana Law Journal, 75, 1349.
15. Henderson, L. N. (1985). The wrongs of victim's rights. Stanford Law Review, 37, 937-985.
16. Jacks, J. Z., & Devine, P. G. (2000). Attitude importance, forewarning of message content, and resistance to persuasion. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 22, 19-30.
17. Logan, W. (1999). Through the past darkly; A survey of the uses and abuses of Victim Impact Evidence in capital trials. Arizona Law Review, 41, 143.
18. Logan, W. (2000). When balance and fairness collide: An argument for execution impact evidence in capital trials. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 33, 1.
19. Long, K. (1995). Community input at sentencing: Victim's right or victim's revenge? Boston University Law Review, 75, 187-229.
20. Luginbuhl, J., & Burkhead, M. (1995). Victim impact evidence in a capital trial: Encouraging votes for death. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 1-16.
21. Myers, B., & Arbuthnot, J. (1999). The effect of victim impact evidence on the verdicts and sentencing judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 29, 95-112.
22. Myers, B., Lynn, S. J., & Arbuthnot, J. (2002). Victim impact evidence and juror judgments: The effects of harm information and witness demeanor. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2393-2412.
23. Myers, B., & Greene, E. (in press). The prejudicial nature of victim impact statements: Implications for capital sentencing policy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law.
24. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991).
25. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: W. C. Brown.
26. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Effects of forewarning of persuasive intent and involvement on cognitive responses and persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 173-176.
27. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1977). Forewarning, cognitive responding, and resistance to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 645-655.
28. Shanker, N. (1999). Getting a grip on Payne and restricting the influence of victim impact statements in capital sentencing: The Timothy McVeigh case and various state approaches compared. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 26, 711-740.
29. South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U.S. 805 (1989).
30. Sullivan, B. (1998). Harnessing Payne: Controlling the admission of victim impact statements to safeguard capital sentencing hearings from passion and prejudice. Fordham Urban Law Review Journal, 25, 601.
31. Taylor, S. E., Peplar, L. A., & Sears, D. O. (1997). Social psychology (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
32. United States v. McVeigh, 153 F3d. 1216 (10th Cir.), 106 F3d (1998).
33. United States v. McVeigh, 106 F3d 325 (1997).
34. Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968).