How Type of Excuse Defense, Mock Juror Age, and Defendant Age Affect Mock Jurors' Decisions

Abstract

The authors investigated the effects of mock juror age (younger vs. older), defendant age (22 vs. 65), and type of excuse defense used by defendants (a highly self-inflicted condition, Cocaine Dependency Disorder, vs. a less self-inflicted condition, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder) on mock juror decisions. Ninety-six younger and 96 older adults read a scenario and answered a questionnaire. Results indicated that the defendant using the highly self-inflicted excuse was more likely to receive a guilty verdict and a longer sentence than was the defendant using the less self-inflicted excuse. Older jurors were more certain of their verdicts and saw the defendant as more responsible for his condition than did younger jurors. Defendant age did not affect juror decisions. In addition, excuse type and juror age affected the jurors' perceptions of the victim's responsibility for the attack. The authors discuss the potential influence of juror age on perceptions of defendant responsibility.

Effects of Offenders' Age and Health on Sentencing Decisions

“…The leniency effect was most pronounced for the 60 year-old offender (see McKelvie & Bergeron [2003] for additional analyses of the Bergeron & McKelvie [2004] data). However, in two other experimental studies of sentencing for violent assault (Higgins, Heath, & Grannemann, 2007;Loeffler & Lawson, 2002), no leniency effect was found for the older offender (i.e. 65 years; 60 years respectively), who received the same length of sentence as the younger offender (i.e.…”

Demographics In Civil Trials: Biases And Implications

“…Higgins and Heath (2007) report that mock juror age affects verdicts and sentences in cases where the excuse defense was highly self-inflicted. In criminal cases where the insanity defense may apply, Breheney et al ( 2007) show juror gender may make a difference in verdict, although the dynamics of gender effects needs further research.…”

Perceptions of credibility of sexual abuse victims across generations

“…This can increase their susceptibility to influence by extra-legal factors (e.g. Cossins, 2008;Higgins, Heath, & Grannemann, 2010), a term used to describe attributes of the case that should have no impact on the decision making process for a juror (Hackettt, Day, & Mohr, 2008). The perceived credibility of victims and their testimony may be inferred from these extra-legal factors, which often take the form of behavioural cues such as physical appearance or non-verbal expression (Davies, Rogers, & Whitelegg, 2009;Vrij, 2000).…”