View
- Term
- Definition
- Both Sides
Study
- All (102)
Shortcut Show
Next
Prev
Flip
PSYC 3530: PSYCH OF OFFENDER FINAL
Jury Selection
|
1. venire
2. voir dire
|
venire |
draw panel of prospective jurors
|
Voir Dire
|
questioning prospective jurors then selecting
|
trail process
|
opening statements, witness questioning (cross-exam hen redirect) closing statements
|
timing of statement
|
defense goes first then verdict tends to go in their favor.
|
jury instrutcions
|
inform on relevant law/standard to which to weigh evidence, sometimes on how to deliberate.
|
jury instrutcions
|
beyond a reasonable doubt
|
standard to weigh evidence (civil)
|
preponderance of evidence
|
side advantages (prosecution)
|
full resources of gov't, present evidence first, offer rebuttal after closing statement, primacy and recency
|
side advantages (defense)
|
discovery, may have more opportunities to remove jurors, defendants don't have to take stand as witness, if found guilty can never be tried for that crime agian
|
primacy
|
first thing jurors hear
|
recency
|
last thing jurors hear
|
Ring v. Arizona (2002)
|
Juries decide if convicted gets death penalty
|
appellate process -criminal
|
if verdict is overturned/reversed, appeals courtorders a retiral or the charges to be thrown out
|
appellate process - civil
|
let the decision stand, reverse it, or make somechanges and return the ccase to the lower court for reconsideration.
|
new technolgy in courts
|
videoconferencing, electronic and digital evidence that allow easy observation, computer animes/simulations,virtual environment tech
|
new technolgy in courts
|
allow observers to experience a re-creation of event
|
why animation better than diagrams
|
increasesease by which jurors could visualize events, allows plaintiff to persuade aboutcase.
|
Why jury not judge
|
believe jury offers more procedural fairness
|
What is the “CSI Effect”?
|
the jury expects plentiful scientific forensic evidence at trial and bases their decision on the presence of this evidence and not testimonies.
|
jurors' sentiments
|
in the judges view the jury’s verdict wasdetrimentally determined by factors beyond the evidence /law
|
Eisenberg work on judge/jury differences
|
how often judges and juries agree on criminal trials;rate of agreement was 70%
|
why jurors more likely to decide not guilty
|
more impressed by third party defense witness andabsence of a prior criminal record.
|
jurors more lenient in determining guilt?
|
yes
|
jurors harsher than judges when assigning sentences?
|
yes
|
Vidmar and Rice (1993
|
individual jurorswere more variable that those of the layers (would award plaintiff more money)
|
Awards for punitive damages by jurors vs judges
|
did not differ substantially, awarded damages aboutthe same size, though jury rage was greater.
|
Effects of racial heterogeneity on jury deliberations
|
onger more thorough deliberations, more likely todiscussed racially charge topics, mentioned more factual info, more aware ofracial concerns, actually process information differently, showed bettercomprehension of relevant background info.
|
Jury Selection andService Act (1968):
|
voter registrationlists be used as “primary source” for jury pool selection.
|
factors increasing representativeness of jury panels
|
using voter redistartion and list of driver’s license, persons receivingpublic assistance and unemployed people
|
factors that decrease representativeness of jury panels
|
voter registration as primary source
|
Limited Voir Dire
|
Small number of questions asked by judge in yes-or-no format; addressed to group of prospective jurors
|
Extended Voir Dire
|
Judge and attorneys ask open-ended questions; jurors are questioned individually.
|
challenges for cause
|
particular juror(s) should be excluded because ofinflexible bias/prejudiced or because of ‘ship that creates an appearance ofbias
|
peremptory cahllenge
|
exclude juror(s) w/o a reason stated/ inquiry and w/obeing subjected to the court’s control
|
purposes of peremptory challenges
|
removing jurors, make everyone more satisfied withoutcome, allow attorney tobegin to indoctrinate prospective jurors and influence people who will ultimately make up jury.
|
social judgements
|
people infrequently admit that social category info (likerace) influences decisions attorney reports unlikely to encompass the realimpact of racial considerations in jury selection.
|
Implicit personality traits
|
(Perceptual errors); based on our interactions with people we create our own system of personality profiles and use them to categoirze new acquantances
|
one-juror verdicttheory
|
thefinal group decision is usually determined by one strong willed, verbal andinfluential juror.
|
similarity-leniencyhypothesis
|
theassupmtiont aht jurors who are demographically or socially familiar to alitigant will be predisposed to favor that litigant
|
black sheep effect
|
groups members may in some circumstances be harder on members of in group- especially when behavior has consequences for group or reflects poorly on all members
|
"First 12 Called" Rule
|
Attorneys accept the first prospects called to the juror box.
|
internal locus of control
|
personal responsibility viewpoint; more likely to find guilty.
|
external locus of control
|
social/environemental factors are key determinants of behavior
|
“belief in a just world” affect verdicts
|
need explanation and justification; will berate victimof a crime or be tougher on the defendant to maintain belief system.
|
scientific juryselection vs traditional selection methods
|
moreeffective in cases in where there were clear-cut relationships between personalityor demographic variables and jurors’ votes.
|
extralegalinformation
|
irrelevant info aboutthe defendant’s background/appearance, why jurors read in the newspaper or byother sources of irrelevant information.
|
joinder |
defendant is tried for two or more charges at the sametime as long as the offenses are similar or are connected to the same act.
|
how joinder affect juror's decsion
|
defendant is tried for two or more charges at the sametime as long as the offenses are similar or are connected to the same act.
|
how joinder affect juror's decsion
|
evidence of other crime/wrongdoings
|
how propensity evidence is used
|
typically not admissible except in fed courts to provide evidence on guilt when relevant to defendant/victim/witness (sex crimes)
|
propensity evidence affects jurors
|
perceive victim more credible, see defendant more likely to be guilty.
|
factors jurors consider in decision about damages (criminal)
|
jurors put more weight on the evidence heard in court; sometimes consider lawyer fees
|
concerns with experts testify
|
may resort to unsystematic/peripheral processing (superifacial aspects) mesmerize jurors causing disregard commonsense, rely too heavily on opinion of expert
|
reforms to enhance comprehension of jinstructions
|
simplify jury instructions by min’ing use of abstractterms, negatively modified sentences, passive voice and by reorg’ing theinstructions in a more logical manner
|
recency effect
|
judges instructions will have more powerful impact on jury's decision when give late in a trail
|
primacy effect
|
instruction most beneficial when presented first; best way to present instruction, used more evidence in deliberation
|
schema effect
|
jurors should e instructed before presentation of testimony b/c this gives them a mental framework to appreciate (ir)relevance of testimony as it unfolds
|
jury nullification
|
juries have the implicit power to acquit defense despite evidence andjudicial instructions to the contrary; permitted juries to acquit if legallyguilty by morally upright
|
class action case
|
involves many plaintiffs who collectively form a“class” and claim they suffered similar injuries as a result of the defendant’sactions.
|
predecisional distortion
|
jurors will distort their evaluation of the evidencein a direction that supports their verdict choice
|
proposed reforms ofthe jury system
|
information should besimplified (more clearly worded insturctins, delivered at beginning, and conclusion)allowing jurors to question witnesses, discuss evidence in midst of trial
|
jurors to ask questions of the witnesses
|
no serious drawbacks, allows for better understanding,
|
jurors to discuss the evidence
|
improve juror comprehension, improve jurorrecollection, promote greater cohesion; facilitate the formation of premature judgmentsabout evidence, diminish the quality of the deliberations as jurors become morefamiliar with views, produce more interpersonal conflict
|
symptoms PTSD
|
frequent re-experiencingof event, persistent avoidance with stimuli associated with event, generalnumbing/deadening of emotions, increased physiological arousal (agitatedstartle response/difficulty sleeping)
|
commonality of PTSD
|
12% had symptoms; 4.6% currently experiencing symptoms
|
help to prevent PTSD
|
social support, eliminate misconceptions abouthelpless self and dangerous world
|
Edna Foa PTSD prevent course
|
edu about common psych reactions to assault, trainingin skills to better cope with stress, emotionally reliving event throughimagery-based exposure, cognitive restructuring
|
battered women
|
masochists, provokethe assult, get the treatment the disereve, free to leave relationship, isn’tcommon, men who are nonviolent in dealing w/ ousiders are the same withintimates, middle/upper-class men don’t batter and women don’t get beaten (it’sa lower class/ethnic issue), “good” battered women are passive and never try todefend themselves
|
risk factors of battering
|
more likely to be unemployed, less educated, member of minority groups, lower SS; raised in families with physical abuse as kids/observed an abusive relationship; have poor-self concepts, not very good problem solvers, have limited verbal skills.
|
three stagesbatterer’s cycle of violence
|
tension-building phase (characterized by increasedcriticism of partner and even minor physical assaults), acute battering incident(more serious form of aggression occurs, too dependent to break it off), contritephase (apologizes for attack promises to never to di again, persuade forchanged man)
|
domestic violence in Singapore and Israel
|
Israeli husbands (58%) say there is no excuse for aman to beat his wife; Singapore disapproved of battery but 6% agreed that undersome circumstances it’s acceptable for a man to beat his wife
|
borderline PD
|
severe disturbance that’s characterized by unstablemoods and behavior
|
battered woman syndorme
|
resultof chronic exposure to repeated incidents woman develops a sense of leaninghelplessness, social isolation and economic dependence, gross increasinglyfearful of threats/attacks, restricts outside activities, diminished self-esteem,feels guilty/ashamed of what she considers her multiple failures andshortcomings, grows hyper vigilant (notices subtle things)
|
rape myths
|
women are responsiblefor preventing own rape, desire for sex main motive for rape, severe punishmentadvocated for rapists, woman seen as instigating rape through flirtatiousbehavior/provocative dress.
|
accounts for stereotypes/myths
|
sexual conservatism, adversarial sexual beliefs,acceptance of interpersonal violence, sex-role stereotyping
|
four rapist factors
|
amount/aggression used,level of aggression was high heightened sexual arousal in sadist manner, offendershowed evidence of psychopathy/anti-social PD, whether the offender relied ondeviant sexual fantasies to produce arousal.
|
three reactions of rape trauma syndrome
|
emotional responses,disturbance in functioning, changes in lifestyle
|
Rape Shield Law
|
Protect victims of rape by limiting a defendant's in-court use of a victim's sexual history
|
oncale v sundowner offshore industries
|
male/male female/female harassment prohibited
|
U.S. federal law defines harassment
|
unwelcome sexual advances/requestsfor sexual favors/ conduct of sexual nature; has purpose/effect of unreasonablyinterfering with an individual’s work performance
|
hostile sexism
|
involves empathytowards women, reflecting belief that males are superior to women and should bedominant over them
|
benevolent sexism
|
attitude ofprotection toward women; belief women as weaker sex, need to be shielded fromworld’s harshness
|
quidpro quo sexual harassment
|
implicit/explicit bargain in which harasser promises areward/threatens punishment depending on victims response.
|
hostile workplace sexual harassment
|
involves demanding comments, acts of touching/attempted intimacy,display of provocative photos/artwork
|
Harrisv. Forklift Systems, Inc. (1993)
|
effect of harassment need not seriously affect anemployee’s psychological well-being or lead plaintiff to suffer injury to constitutehostile workplace harassment.
|
abuse excuse
|
a legal tactic by which a person charged with a crime claims that past victimization justified his or her retaliation
|
What are the seven goals of punishing criminals?
|
General deterrence
Individual deterrence
Incapacitation
Retribution
Moral Outrage
Rehabilitation
Restitution
|
utilitarian goals of punishment
|
intended to accomplisha useful outcome such as compensating victim, deterring crime, or incapacitating/rehab’ingdefendant (practical outcomes)
|
retributive goals of punsihment
|
involve looking backat the offense and determining what the criminal “deserves” a consequence of crime
|
Sentencing Reform Act of 1984
|
the act of Congress that abolished parole, established determinate sentences and reduced the amount of good time available to federal offenders
|
judge focus on when making decisions
|
blameworthiness,protection of community, practical constraints and consequences of he sentence
|
sentencing process
|
judge receives than reviews file about case, athearing recommendations for a sentence are presented to the judge first by prosecutorthen by defense counsel
|
blended sentencing
|
statutes that combine the options available injuvenile court with those used in criminal court:
|
Threeways are sex offenders treated differently
|
mandatoryregistration and community notification, involuntary commitment, extremesanction like enhanced sentences and treatments like castration.
|
aggravating factors
|
elements of the crime, such as killing in an especially brutal or heinous manner, that make the defendant more likely to receive a death sentence.
|
Mitigating Factors
|
factors such as age, mental capacity, motivations, or duress that lessen the degree of guilt in a criminal offense and thus the nature of the punishment
|
death qualified juror
|
thosewho remain after the vior dire process about death penalty; people who are notopposed to death penalty, would be somewhat more conviction-prone
|
Panettiv. Quarterman (2007)
|
SC held it’s unconstitutional to execute those who areincompetent for execution but didn’t define test for competence for execution
|
Restorative justice threebasic goals
|
to repair harm and restore losses caused by offensiveactivity, encourage offenders to assume responsibility for their actions,empower victims/community to move beyond feelings of vulnerability and loss asense of understanding and closure
|
indeterminate sentencing
|
judge imposes a variable period of incarceration for agiven offense and parole board determines the actual date of release
|
determinate sentencing
|
offenders are sentences for a fixed length of time; sentencesdetermined by statutes and guidelines judge have little choice about length of sentencesand no parole
|