Deliberating about terrorism: Prejudice and jury verdicts in a mock terrorism trial

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology

Volumn 44, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 387-403

  Tait, David ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

jury deliberation; mock juries; terrorism

Indexed keywords

EID: 84864826032     PISSN: 00048658     EISSN: 18379273     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0004865811419067     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Abramson JWe, The Jury: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2000:.
2. Allport GWThe Nature of Prejudice. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co; 1954:.
3. Bray R,Noble A.Authoritarianism and decisions of mock juries: Evidence of jury bias and group polarization.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1978;36 (12): 1424-1430.
4. Campbell D,Stanley J,Gage NExperimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally; 1963:.
5. Cochrane T.Eight dimensions for the emotions.Social Science Information. 2009;48 (3): 379-420.
6. Cooper M,Rennie RThe Age. 2008:.
7. Crona S,Richardson N.Justice for war criminals of invisible armies: A new legal and military approach to terrorism.Oklahoma City University Law Review. 1996;21:349-349.
8. Das E,Bushman BJ,Bezemer MD,Kerkhof P,Vermeulen IE.How terrorism news reports increase prejudice against outgroups: A terror management account.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2009;45 (3): 453-459.
9. De La Fuente L,De La Fuente EI,Garcia J.Effects of pretrial juror bias, strength of evidence and deliberation process on juror decisions: New validity evidence of the Juror Bias Scale scores.Psychology, Crime & Law. 2003;9 (2): 197-209.
10. Devine DJ,Buddenbaum J,Houp S,Stolle DP,Studebaker N.Deliberation quality: A preliminary examination in criminal juries.Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. 2007;4 (2): 273-303.
11. Devine DJ,Clayton LD,Dunford BB,Seying R,Pryce J.Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups.Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 2001;7 (3): 622-727.
12. Diamond S.Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations.Law and Human Behavior. 1997;21 (5): 561-571.
13. Dillehay RC,Nietzel MT.Juror experience and jury verdicts.Law and Human Behavior. 1985;9 (2): 179-179.
14. Donohue L.Terrorism and trial by jury: The vices and virtues of British and American criminal law.Stanford Law Review. 2006;59:1321-1364.
15. Ellsworth P.Are twelve heads better than one.Law and Contemporary Problems. 1989;52:205-224.
16. Evans JSBT.Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition.Annual Review of Psychology. 2008;59 (1): 255-278.
17. Feigenson N,Park J.Emotions and attributions of legal responsibility and blame: A research review.Law and Human Behavior. 2006;30 (2): 143-161.
18. Finch E,Munro VEJournal of Law and Society. 2008:30-51.
19. Fishfader VL,Howells GN,Katz RC,Teresi PS.Evidential and extralegal factors in juror decisions: Presentation mode, retention, and level of emotionality.Law and Human Behavior. 1996;20 (5): 565-572.
20. Garapon A.The oak and the reed: Counter-terrorism mechanisms in France and the United States of America.Cardozo Law Review. 2005;27:2041-2077.
21. Garcia LT,Griffitt W.Authoritarianism-situation interactions in the determination of punitiveness: Engaging authoritarian ideology.Journal of Research in Personality. 1978;12 (4): 469-478.
22. Gastil J,Burkhalter S,Black LW.Do juries deliberate? A study of deliberation, individual difference, and group member satisfaction at a Municipal Courthouse.Small Group Research. 2007;38 (3): 337-359.
23. Gerstenfeld PB.Juror decision making in hate crime cases.Criminal Justice Policy Review. 2003;14 (2): 193-213.
24. Helgeson VS,Shaver KG.Presumption of innocence: Congruence bias induced and overcome.Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1990;20 (4): 276-302.
25. Jackman S,Sniderman P.The limits of deliberative discussion: A model of everyday political arguments.Journal of Politics. 2006;68 (2): 272-283.
26. Jackson JD,Doran S.Conventional trials in unconventional times: The Diplock court experience.Criminal Law Forum. 1993;4 (3): 503-520.
27. Kalven H,Zeisel HThe American Jury. New York: Little Brown; 1966:.
28. Kassin SM,Wrightsman LS.The construction and validation of a juror bias scale.Journal of Research in Personality. 1983;17:423-442.
29. Kerr N,MacCoun R,Kramer G.Bias in judgment: Comparing individuals and groups.Psychological Review. 1996;103 (4): 687-719.
30. Kerr NL,Niedermeier KE,Kaplan MF.Bias in juror vs. bias in juries: New evidence from the SDS Perspective.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1999;80 (1): 70-86.
31. Kerwin J,Shaffer D.The effects of jury dogmatism on reactions to jury nullification instructions.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1991;17 (2): 140-146.
32. Kerwin J,Shaffer DR.Mock jurors versus mock juries: The role of deliberations in reactions to inadmissible testimony.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1994;20 (2): 153-162.
33. King N.Nameless justice: The case for the routine use of anonymous juries in criminal trials.Vanderbilt Law Review. 1996;49:123-159.
34. Koh H.The case against military commissions.American Journal of International Law. 2002;96 (2): 337-344.
35. Kramer GP,Kerr NL,Carroll JS.Pretrial publicity, judicial remedies, and jury bias.Law and Human Behavior. 1990;14 (5): 409-438.
36. Kravitz DA,Cutler BL,Brock P.Reliability and validity of the original and revised legal attitudes questionnaire.Law and Human Behavior. 1993;17 (6): 661-677.
37. Lamberth J,Krieger E,Shay S.Juror decision making: A case of attitude change mediated by authoritarianism.Journal of Research in Personality. 1982;16 (4): 419-434.
38. Langworthy RH,Whitehead JT.Liberalism and fear as explanations of punitiveness.Criminology. 1986;24 (3): 575-591.
39. Lecci L,Myers B.Examining the construct validity of the original and revised JBS: A cross-validation of sample and method.Law and Human Behavior. 2002;26 (4): 455-463.
40. Lecci LB,Myers B.Predicting guilt judgments and verdict change using a measure of pretrial bias in a videotaped mock trial with deliberating jurors.Psychology Crime & Law. 2009;15 (7): 619-634.
41. MacCoun RJ.The emergence of extralegal bias during jury deliberation.Criminal Justice and Behavior. 1990;17 (3): 303-314.
42. Macdougall D.Jury vetting by the prosecution.Criminal Law Quarterly. 1981;24:98-98.
43. Madison B.Trial by jury or by military tribunal for accused terrorist detainees facing the death penalty - an examination of principles that transcend the US Constitution.University of Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy. 2006;17:347-347.
44. Marder NS.Gender dynamics and jury deliberations.The Yale Law Journal. 1987;96 (3): 593-612.
45. Mazzella 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 (15): 1315-1338.
46. Narby D,Cutler B,Moran G.A meta-analysis of the association between authoritarianism and jurors' perceptions of defendant culpability.Journal of Applied Psychology. 1993;78 (1): 34-42.
47. Ogloff JR,Vidmar N.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. 1994;18 (5): 507-525.
48. Pennington N,Hastie R.Explaining the evidence: Tests of the story model for juror decision making.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1992;62 (2): 189-206.
49. Rose VG,Ogloff JR.Evaluating the comprehensibility of jury instructions: A method and an example.Law and Human Behavior. 2001;25 (4): 409-431.
50. Saks M.What do jury experiments tell us about how juries (should) make decisions.Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal. 1997;6:1-1.
51. Schwartz M,DeKeseredy W,Tait D,Alvi S.Male peer support and a feminist routine activities theory: Understanding sexual assault on the college campus.Justice Quarterly. 2001;18 (3): 701-727.
52. Smith TA War on Terror?: The European Stance on a New Threat, Changing Laws and Human Rights Implications. Wade MMaljević A, ed. New York: Springer; 2009:429-442.
53. Taylor TS,Hosch HM.An examination of jury verdicts for evidence of a similarity-leniency effect, an out-group punitiveness effect or a black sheep effect.Law and Human Behavior. 2004;28 (5): 587-598.
54. Thaman S.The nullification of the Russian jury: Lessons for jury-inspired reform in Eurasia and beyond.Cornell International Law Journal. 2007;40:355-428.
55. Thompson WC,Cowan CL,Ellsworth PC,Harrington JC.Death penalty attitudes and conviction proneness.Law and Human Behavior. 1984;8 (1): 95-113.
56. Trafimow D,Sheeran P.Some tests of the distinction between cognitive and affective beliefs.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1998;34:378-397.
57. Ullrich J,Cohrs J.Terrorism salience increases system justification: Experimental evidence.Social Justice Research. 2007;20 (2): 117-139.
58. Vidmar N.When all of us are victims: Juror prejudice and 'terrorist' trials.Chicago-Kent Law Review. 2003;78:1143-1163.
59. Vidmar NLaw and Psychology. Freeman M, ed. London: Oxford University Press; 2006:.
60. Wald K,Scicchitano M,Silverman A,Johns T2007:.
61. Wiener RL,Bornstein BH,Voss A.Emotion and the law: A framework for inquiry.Lawand Human Behavior. 2006;30 (2): 231-248.
62. Zaitsu W.Bomb threats and offender characteristics in Japan.Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling. 2010;7 (1): 75-89.