Attorney and lay beliefs about factors affecting jurors' perceptions of juvenile offender culpability

Abstract

We surveyed attorneys and college students to learn what factors they believe influence jurors' perceptions of juvenile offender culpability and then varied two of these factors in a simulated case to determine their actual effects on mock jurors' decisions. In Study 1, attorneys (N 030) and undergraduate mock jurors (N 047) believed that a juvenile offender's youthful (versus adult-like) appearance would mitigate jurors' ratings of juvenile culpability. Both groups believed that jurors' perceptions of juvenile crime trends would not have an impact on culpability. In Study 2, undergraduate mock jurors (N0193) read a simulated juvenile case accompanied by a photograph of a youthful versus adult-like defendant. Mock jurors who believed that juvenile crime is increasing were more likely to render guilty verdicts, but their verdicts were not affected by the juvenile's youthful appearance. Mock jurors' sentencing recommendations did not vary as a function of the juvenile's appearance or their perceptions of juvenile crime trends. Psychologists and defense attorneys may wish to emphasize the developmental immaturity of their clients to decrease their culpability to jurors, although it is unclear how large an effect this will have on verdicts and sentencing recommendations in practice.

Juvenile offenders on trial: does alibi corroboration evidence and defendant age interact to influence jurors’ perceptions and verdicts?

“…Given that there are instances when jurors can recommend sentences (as cited in Camilletti & Scullin, 2012), these findings are relevant. For example, Warling and Peterson-Badali (2003) presented mock jurors with the trial of a male who stabbed and killed another male of the same age.…”

“…Some feel that adolescents, particularly those under the age of 15 years, do not have the same criminal culpability and adjudicative competence as adults (see Kambam & Thompson, 2009;Schmidt, Reppucci, & Woolard, 2003), while others believe a "get tough" approach rendering strict and enduring consequences is most appropriate for juvenile offenders. Despite some protestors, juveniles are, at times, heard in adult courts and can be subjected to jury trials, where members of the public decide a verdict and, in some cases, recommend their sentence (as cited in Camilletti & Scullin, 2012). For this reason, it is very important to understand the factors that jurors consider when determining a verdict and sentencing in a juvenile offender case.…”

Youths’ Facial Appearance Distinguishes Leaders From Followers in Group-Perpetrated Criminal Offenses and Is Associated With Sentencing Outcomes

“…No study has yet examined the influence of appearance on sentencing outcomes among youth in conflict with the law, yet similar results might be expected. Consistent with this idea, attorneys report that they believe youth will be viewed as less culpable when they have a more youthful, rather than mature, appearance (Camilletti & Scullin, 2012). In the context of cooffending, leaders perceived as less dominant or competent may subsequently receive a lighter sentence, despite their culpability in the crime relative to other group members.…”

Attributions for youth crime, accountability and legal competence

“…Other factors relevant to opinions about young offenders, such as youthful appearance and perceptions of their legal competencies have been investigated. For example, Camilletti and Scullin (2012) found that youthful appearance did not affect sentencing recommendations made by their sample of university students. Ghetti and Redlich (2001) found that their respondents believed that younger offenders are not as legally competent as older offenders but this did not affect opinions about appropriate sentences.…”