Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Psychology
Jurors’ Use Of Non-Statutory Aggravating And Mitigating Evidence In The Context Of Improper Prosecutor Argument, Alicia Serpa
Jurors’ Use Of Non-Statutory Aggravating And Mitigating Evidence In The Context Of Improper Prosecutor Argument, Alicia Serpa
Psychology Theses
The proposed research examined the affective and cognitive processes involved in jurors’ reactions to comparative value arguments and evidence of non-statutory aggravating and mitigating circumstances in the sentencing phase of a capital trial. The experiment utilized a 2 (Permissible Victim Impact Statements: Present v. absent) x 3 (Non-Statutory Mitigating Evidence: Social Value v. Troubled Life v. Both) x 2 (Comparative Value Argument: Life v. Worth) + 1 between-groups factorial design. Participants exposed to comparative worth arguments were more likely to vote for death than those exposed to comparative life arguments. In addition, participants were differentially influenced by comparative arguments. In …
The Influence Of Regret Proneness, Evidence Strengthening, And Perceived Responsibility On Verdict Preference, Stephanie L. Oglesby
The Influence Of Regret Proneness, Evidence Strengthening, And Perceived Responsibility On Verdict Preference, Stephanie L. Oglesby
Psychology Theses
In the present study, we investigated perceived responsibility, evidence strengthening, and defendant gender in the context of a criminal trial involving DNA. Evidence was introduced post-trial and varied as strengthening the defendant’s guilt v. innocence. We also examined perceptions of perceived responsibility for verdict in order to more closely evaluate the role of regret in decision-making. Results indicated that DNA evidence is perceived as reliable, regardless of whether it strengthened guilt or innocence. In addition, greater confidence in verdict was observed when evidence strengthened the guilt of a female defendant vs. a male defendant. Finally, jurors experiencing high levels of …
The Utility Of The Savry In Predicting Recidivism Among Juvenile Sex Offenders, Timothy Owens
The Utility Of The Savry In Predicting Recidivism Among Juvenile Sex Offenders, Timothy Owens
Psychology Theses
The identification of high-risk juvenile sex offenders has become one of the most controversial tasks of forensic mental health professionals today. Courts rely on clinician assessments when attempting to differentiate between youth who are low risk versus youth that are high risk to recidivate. The present study will examine the effectiveness of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) in predicting sexual and nonsexual recidivism in a sample of juvenile sex offenders. Participants are 100 male juvenile sex offenders who were evaluated by a forensic evaluation service regarding their risk to reoffend. Archival case information, which contains forensic …
Examining Comparative Value Arguments, Capital Sentencing Evidence, And Legal Safeguards, Rachel Small
Examining Comparative Value Arguments, Capital Sentencing Evidence, And Legal Safeguards, Rachel Small
Psychology Theses
Comparative value arguments (CVA) suggest to jurors that a death sentence is appropriate because the victim’s value surpasses the defendant’s value. Jurors exposed to CVA are likely to misuse mitigation and victim impact evidence. The present study has a sample of 140 university students. A 2 x 4 + 1 between-groups factorial design was utilized to examine effects of mitigation and victim impact evidence in the context of CVA (held constant); and to test legal safeguard efficacy. A main effect was found of legal safeguards on jurors’ perceptions of prosecutorial misconduct, and a significant association was found between legal safeguards …