Social Psychology of Justice Final

dynamite charge

This charge to the jury is an effort to break the deadlock

“reexamine your views and seriously consider each other’s arguments”

evidence-driven style

the first vote is postponed until after jurors have engaged in a careful, systematic discussion of the evidence

Expert Witness

offer testimony based on specialized knowledge, training, or experience

Hung juries

those that cannot reach a unanimous verdict

Impeachment evidence

evidence meant to damage the credibility of a witness’s statements

informational influence

change their opinions because other jurors make compelling arguments

normative influence

giving in to group pressure

ironic processes

When we make an effort not to think about something, that thing often dominates our thoughts

jury nullification

juries may base their verdicts on reasoning that ignores, disregards, or goes beyond the law

Leniency bias

when jury is split on initial vote, tends to end in acquittal

liberation hypothesis

when evidence at trial is weak or ambiguous, jurors are “liberated” from relying on it

instead rely on intuition

open conflict

differences in opinion among members of the jury become apparent and coalitions may form among members of the group

mathematical models

describing jurors’ decision-making processes, models in which pieces of evidence are mathematically weighted to explain how jurors decide between a verdict of guilty or not guilty.

orientation

juries elect a foreperson, discuss procedures, and raise general issues

reactance theory

people are motivated to maintain their freedom in the face of threats to that freedom

reconciliation

jurors reach a common understanding and agreement

story models

proposes that jurors create stories to make sense of the evidence presented at trial

strong jurors

such jurors seem likely to have a disproportionate influence on the deliberation process

verdict-driven style

juries take a vote shortly after they begin deliberations and then orient their subsequent discussions around the verdict options, tends to encourage jurors to sort the evidence into two categories: supporting conviction or supporting acquittal

effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) in prisons

reduced recidivism by more than a third

controllability

whether a behavior appears to have been under the control of the person

Stability

whether the cause of a behavior appears to be temporary (unstable) or permanent (stable)

criminal thinking

a set of antisocial attitudes and habits of thought

criminogenic effect

it (prison) increases the likelihood of subsequent criminal behavior

determinate sentencing

requires judges to hand down a sentence that falls within a prespecified range if a defendant is found guilty of a particular crime

parole vs probation

Parole refers to releasing inmates from prison under the supervision of a parole officer

Probation involves withholding a prison sentence and releasing the criminal, who is then strictly supervised by a probation officer in the community

prisonization

the assimilation of new inmates into the values, norms, and language of the prison

recidivism

commission of new offenses after release from prison

Residential community corrections centers (halfway house)

groups of offenders live in a communal environment and attend some form of group therapy

supermax prison

Super maximum security

reserved for people deemed especially serious criminals or for inmates transferred from other prisons because of significant behavior problems

temporary leave

inmates are permitted to leave the prison for about a day

three-strikes laws

require that criminals receive a long sentence or a life sentence when they are convicted of a third felony

aggravating factors

characteristics of the murder and the murderer that support a (death) sentence

increase the wrongfulness of the defendant’s actions or the harmful effects of the crime

mitigating factors

reduce the defendant’s blameworthiness and make execution less appropriate as a punishment

do not justify or excuse the crime

brutalization effect

The small increase in the rate of murders in the weeks following an execution, of which the execution itself is believed to be the cause.

death qualification

jurors in capital murder cases are asked about their willingness to vote for the death penalty if the defendant is found guilty

execution impact statements (EISs)

used to explain the severe negative impact that a death sentence would have on the family of the defendant

guided discretion

The use of special instructions and procedures to control the discretion of jurors in capital murder trials.

penalty phase

The second phase of a capital murder trial, in which jurors decide whether the defendant should be sentenced to death by execution or life in prison without the possibility of parole.

victim impact statements (VISs)

statements are made by the victim’s surviving family members and friends and typically attempt to explain how the loss of a loved one damaged the lives of survivors

tacit coordination

process in which jurors work together without direct communication to reach a consensus

asch conformity study

investigated how individuals yield to or resist group pressure in a clear, objective task

Williams v Florida 1970

6th amendment does not require a 12-person jury

Johnson v Louisiana 1972

allowing convictions based on a 9-3 jury decision

two-thirds rule

if there reaches a 2/3 majority, tends to go that way

group polarization

deliberation polarizes the group to go further in the direction of their initial leaning

inadmissible evidence

Information that might be prejudicial and not admitted into evidence

How many judges on supreme court

9

Furman v Georgia 1972

ruled death penalty unconstitutional when applied arbitrarily

• during one-trial system

Gregg v Georgia 1976

restored death penalty

• implemented two-trial system

• conviction phase and sentencing phase

anti-terrorism and death penalty act 1996

reduced access to Habeus Corpus petitions, federal appeal of state cases, and limited appeals to one year in state cases

Ring v Arizona 2002

jury (not a judge) must decide on sentencing

3 states still have laws that allow a judge to overrule a jury

Atkins v Virgina 2002

cannot execute the “mentally retarded”

Roper v Simmons 2005

cannot execute juvenile offenders

Wainwright v Witt 1985

can exclude jurors if their beliefs substantially interfere with ability to assign the death penalty

Morgan v Illinois 1992

can exclude a juror who is too death penalty prone

• - automatically applying the death penalty is a no

McClesky v Kemp 1987

upheld the death sentence of a Black defendant despite statistical evidence showing racial disparities in Georgia's capital punishment system, ruling that proof of discriminatory intent in the individual case is required for a constitutional violation

Stereotype consistency

defendants who fit particular criminal stereotypes are treated more harshly than defendants who do not fit such stereotypes