Victim impact statements and mock juror sentencing: The impact of dehumanizing language on a death qualified sample

American Journal of Forensic Psychology

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 39-55

  Myers, Bryan ^a   Godwin, Draven ^b   Latter, Rachel ^b   Winstanley, Scott ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA WILMINGTON   (United States)

^b Alliant International University ^*

^c ALLIANT INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; CONTROLLED STUDY; COURT; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; DECISION MAKING; EDUCATION; FEMALE; HOMICIDE; HUMAN; HUMANITIES; LANGUAGE; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PUNISHMENT; RANDOMIZATION; REVIEW; UNITED STATES; VICTIM;

EID: 2442529743     PISSN: 07331290     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Payne v. Tennessee, 111 S.Ct. 2597 (1991)
2. Brammer MV: Case notes: Eighth amendment no longer bars victim impact statement admission in capital sentencing proceedings. Cincinnati Law Review 1992; 61:261-295
3. Levy JH: Limiting victim impact evidence and argument after Payne v. Tennessee. Stanford Law Review 1993; 45:1027-1060
4. Myers B, Greene E: The prejudicial nature of victim impact statements: implications for capital sentencing policy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, in press
5. Talbert PA: The relevance of victim impact statements to the criminal sentencing decision. UCLA Law Review 1988; 36:199-220
6. Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 486 (1987)
7. South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U.S. 905 (1989)
8. Logan WA: Through the past darkly: a survey of the uses and abuses of victim impact evidence in capital trials. Arizona Law Review 1999; 41:143-192
9. Bandura A: Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 1973
10. Sullivan v. State, 636 F.
11. Powell v. State, 906 P.2d 765, 776-77 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995)
12. Haney C: Violence and the capital jury: mechanisms of moral disengagement and the impulse to condemn to death. Stanford Law Review 1997; 49:1447-1486
13. Bandura A: Mechanisms of moral disengagement, in Origins of Terrorism: Psychologies, Ideologies, Theologies, States of Mind. Edited by Walter Reich. New York, Cambridge University Press, 1990
14. Bandura A, Underwood B, Fromson ME: Disinhibition of aggression through diffusion of responsibility and dehumanization of victims. Journal of Research in Personality 1975; 9:253-269
15. Kelman HC: Violence without moral restraint: Reflections on the dehumanization of victims and victimizers. Journal of Social Issues 1973; 29:25-61
16. Willingham v. State 947 P.2d. 1074, 1085-1086. (Okla Crim. App. 1997)
17. Conover v. State 933 P. 2d 904, 920 (Okla Cr. 1997)
18. Duncan MG: In slime and darkness: The metaphor of filth in criminal justice. Tulane Law Review 1994; 68:725-801
19. Luginbuhl J, Burkhead M: Victim impact evidence in a capital trial: encouraging votes for death. American Journal of Criminal Justice 1995; 20:1-16
20. Myers B, Arbuthnot J: The effects of victim impact information on the verdicts and sentence recommendations of mock jurors. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 1999; 29:95-112
21. Myers B, Lynn SJ, Arbuthnot J: Victim impact evidence and juror judgments: the effects of harm information and witness demeanor. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2002; 32:2393-2412
22. Greene E, Koehring H, Quiat M: Victim impact evidence in capital cases: does the victim's character matter? Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1998; 28:145-156
23. Greene E: The many guises of victim impact evidence and effects on jurors' judgments. Psychology, Crime, and Law 1999; 5:331-348
24. Allen M, Mabry E, McKelton DM: Impact of juror attitudes about the death penalty on juror evaluations of guilt and punishment: a meta analysis. Law and Human Behavior 1998; 22:715-731
25. Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 88 S. Ct. 1770 (1968)
26. Bray RM, Kerr NL: Use of the simulation method in the study of jury behavior: some methodological considerations. Law and Human Behavior 1979; 3:107-119
27. Diamond SS: Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior 1997; 21:561-571
28. Konecni VJ, Ebbesen EB: External validity of research in legal psychology. Law and Human Behavior 1979; 3:39-70
29. Weiten W, Diamond SS: A critical review of the jury simulation paradigm: a case of defendant characteristics. Law and Human Behavior 1979; 3:71-93
30. Bornstein B: The ecological validity of trial simulations: is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior 1999; 23:75-92
31. Rose VG, Ogloff JRP: Evaluating the comprehensibility of jury instructions: a method and an example. Law and Human Behavior 2001; 25:409-431
32. Dane FC, Wrightsman LS: Effects of defendants' and victims' characteristics on jurors' verdicts, in Psychology of the Courtroom. Edited by Kerr NL, Bray RM. Orlando, FL, Academic Press, 1982
33. Mazella R, Feingold A: The effects of physical attractiveness, race, socioeconomic status, and gender of defendants and victims on judgments of mock jurors: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1994; 24:1315-1344
34. Alicke M.D: Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin 2000; 126:556-574
35. Green-McGowan M: Who is the victim anyway? The effects of bystander victim impact statements on mock juror sentencing decisions. Unpublished masters thesis, Alliant International University, Fresno, CA, 2002