Who Is the Victim Anyway? The Effects of Bystander Victim Impact Statements on Mock Juror Sentencing Decisions

Abstract

Victim impact evidence was varied in a brief trial scenario given to 120 participants eligible for jury service. The scenario concerned the murder trial of a disgruntled employee accused of bombing his former workplace. Participants read either no victim impact evidence or one of three victim impact statements. For the victim impact statements, we varied the identity of the witness. The victim impact statement was given by either the wife of the victim, a coworker of the victim, or a firefighter called to the crime scene. Results revealed that only the victim impact evidence given by the coworker lead to harsher sentencing judgments. However, participants rated the suffering of the victim's wife as most severe, indicating that perceptions of suffering may not predict sentencing judgments in a straightforward manner. Implications for these findings for legal decisions such as Payne v. Tennessee (1991) are discussed.

Effects of Emotional Testimony and Gruesome Photographs on Mock Jurors' Decisions and Negative Emotions

“…Among participants who rendered a guilty verdict, 33% of the participants in the testimony-present condition chose the death penalty, while in the testimony-absent condition only 16% of participants made this choice. This finding is consistent with past research (McGowan & Myers, 2004;Myers et al, 2002).…”

“…As a consequence of being exposed to the victim impact testimony, jurors may feel negative emotions, become negatively biased, and focus on negative information (Feigenson & Park, 2006). In United States jury trials as well as those in many other countries, the victim impact testimony is usually presented after a guilty verdict is rendered during the sentencing phase; therefore, most research about victim impact testimony has focused on its effect on sentencing decisions (Greene, Koehring, & Quiat, 1998;McGowan & Myers, 2004). A number of studies have reported that victim impact testimony has led mock jurors to render harsher sentences (Forsterlee, Fox, Forsterlee, & Ho, 2004;Greene et al, 1998;McGowan & Myers, 2004;Myers, Godwin, Latter, & Winstanley, 2004;Wevodau, Cramer, Clark, & Kehn, 2014).…”

“…In United States jury trials as well as those in many other countries, the victim impact testimony is usually presented after a guilty verdict is rendered during the sentencing phase; therefore, most research about victim impact testimony has focused on its effect on sentencing decisions (Greene, Koehring, & Quiat, 1998;McGowan & Myers, 2004). A number of studies have reported that victim impact testimony has led mock jurors to render harsher sentences (Forsterlee, Fox, Forsterlee, & Ho, 2004;Greene et al, 1998;McGowan & Myers, 2004;Myers, Godwin, Latter, & Winstanley, 2004;Wevodau, Cramer, Clark, & Kehn, 2014). For example, mock jurors who heard victim impact testimony voted for the death penalty more often than mock jurors who did not hear the testimony, regardless of the degree of aggravation in the case (Luginbuhl & Burkhead, 1995).…”

“…Research has also shown that victim impact testimony influenced mock jurors to give harsher sentences when the defendant was female (Forsterlee et al, 2004). Studies which have investigated the effect of victim impact testimony on sentencing decisions have also shown that exposure to such testimony increases individuals' negative emotions (Forsterlee et al, 2004;McGowan & Myers, 2004;Myers & Green, 2004;Salerno & Bottoms, 2009). For example, participants who heard victim impact testimony felt greater anger and vengefulness, and they imposed the death penalty more than participants who did not hear the testimony (Paternoster & Deise, 2011), while highly emotional testimony evoked more negative emotions than less emotional testimony or testimony without emotion (Myers et al, 2002).…”

Victim participation in criminal trials in Japan

“…19 The second category of empirical research on this issue treats lay judges' sentencing as a dependent variable. This research uses one of two types by methodology: (1) data from actual cases or reported statistics (Aguirre et al, 1999;Cassell, 1999;Eisenberg et al, 2003;Karp and Warshaw, 2009) and (2) mock-jury studies (Blumenthal, 2009;Butler, 2008;ForsterLee et al, 2004;Gordon and Brodsky, 2007;Greene, 1999;Greene et al, 1998;Hills and Thomson, 1999;Luginbuhl and Burkhead, 1995;McGowan and Myers, 2004;Myers and Arbuthnot, 1999;Myers et al, 2004Myers et al, , 2002Nadler and Rose, 2003;Platania and Berman, 2006;Tsoudis and Smith-Lovin, 1998). The results of the former type are not consistent.…”