Do they matter? A meta-analytic investigation of individual characteristics and guilt judgments.

Abstract

Many people believe the personal attributes of trial participants substantially impact the decisions of juries, and considerable research has examined the extent to which characteristics of jurors and defendants are associated with juror judgments of guilt. To assess this broad issue, we meta-analyzed empirical studies examining the relationship between 11 juror and defendant characteristics and individual-level judgments of guilt in criminal trial contexts. Three potential moderator variables were also investigated: participant type, outcome type, and case type. In total, 464 effects were obtained from 272 published and unpublished studies. The 11 focal characteristics yielded sample-weighted mean correlations ranging from zero to .22 in magnitude, with the strongest overall relationships emerging for defendant socioeconomic status (Ϫ.11), defendant criminal record (.12), juror authoritarianism (.17), and juror trust in the legal system (.22). There was, however, substantial evidence of moderation for 10 of the 11 characteristics, suggesting their overall relationships vary according to one or more other variables. Moderator analyses revealed little support for participant type, some support for outcome type, and good support for case type with regard to their ability to explain variation in the observed effects. Overall, several juror and defendant characteristics were associated strongly enough with guilt judgments to warrant the attention of scholars and legal practitioners, and the results of this work add to our understanding of extralegal bias and juror decision making.

Effects of Child Interview Tactics on Prospective Jurors' Decisions

“…We examined multiple factors in our model; therefore, it is possible that victim gender did not account for a significant portion of the variance in credibility scores or verdict decisions while competing with all other direct and indirect effects. In light of Devine and Caughlin's (2014) meta-analysis, we view our null effects as evidence that there were stronger factors in our model (e.g., prior opinions about children's eyewitness abilities), and that previous findings attributing effects to victim gender may not have accounted for these other factors. These factors likely interrelate or interact with one another, and impose indirect, rather than direct, effects on guilt decisions.…”

“…Recently, a meta-analysis of factors influencing guilt decisions indicated that participant characteristics (e.g., gender) may not have as strong an effect as case or trial characteristics (e.g., sexual abuse case vs. robbery case) or may have a moderated or mediated effect on verdicts (Devine & Caughlin, 2014). We therefore chose SEM to model our predicted pathways and to account for their simultaneous association with one another as well as the direct and indirect effects on mock jurors' guilt decisions.…”

El error judicial en el uso de la prisión preventiva: Personas en prisión que nunca llegan a ser condenadas.

“…Este aspecto se podría paliar con estudios de casos en vez de sentencias, en los que se sigue el proceso de cada acusado individualmente. Por otra parte, también sería interesante ampliar el número de variables a estudiar, y tener en cuenta aspectos como la pertenencia a minorías étnicas de acusados y/o víctimas (Devine y Caughlin, 2014), el estado civil del acusado, o incluso las características personales o ideológicas de Jueces y Magistrados (Arce, Tortosa, y Alfaro 2003).…”

“…En relación a los antecedentes penales, un meta-análisis reciente (Devine y Caughlin, 2014) refleja que el conocimiento del historial criminal previo aumenta las probabilidades de condena (r =.12). Utilizar la información de los antecedentes como indicador de probabilidad o pronóstico de un hecho, conlleva serios peligros.…”

“…Sin embargo, en España, a diferencia de otros países, los antecedentes penales no serían una variable extralegal, ya que el Juez dispone de esta información sobre el acusado. Los estudios meta-analíticos sobre el efecto del estatus socioeconómico (SES) (Devine y Caughlin, 2014), ponen de manifiesto que el bajo SES del acusado aumenta la probabilidad de ser considerado culpable y posteriormente condenado, aunque con tamaños de efecto pequeño y moderado, respectivamente. Este fenómeno puede ser explicado por el efecto psicológico sobre los decisores judiciales de la sobrerrepresentación de la población pobre entre los reclusos, así como por la dificultad de la gente con bajos recursos económicos para pagar la fianza, cuando es el caso (Schönteich, 2014).…”