Jury psychosocial factors

An old and well-known judicial body is established in the courtrooms: the Jury Courts. Its members are entrusted with a task of great responsibility: to judge and sentence. Their decisions, usually made by professionals, will be those that are reflected in the sentences.

The Law of the Jury Court (5/95) includes the functioning and powers of these jurisdictional bodies. In it, citizens are delegated the task of judging certain crimes: against persons (homicides), omission of the duty to help, against honor, against freedom and security (threats, breaking and entering), fires and those committed by officials in the exercise of their duties (bribery, trafficking in influences). The jurisdiction of these Courts, made up of nine members chaired by a magistrate, is exercised only within the scope of the Provincial Courts (art. 1 and 2).

Those who exercise it must promise this formula: "Do you swear or promise to perform your jury function well and faithfully, to examine the accusation with justice? formulated against,..., appreciating without hatred or affection the evidence given to you and impartially resolve whether or not they are guilty of the crimes charged? " (art. 41).

The response of the jurors will be affirmative, but no one is unaware of the possible influences that can affect the jurors. This situation has motivated a field of study in psychology that has responded with a large number of investigations: we will try to know the conclusions they have reached.

In this PsychologyOnline article we will analyze the jury psychosocial factors from three perspectives: selection and qualification of the jurors, their characteristics, including how they perceive and integrate the information, and, finally, the group's deliberation to take the decision.

Index

1. Selection and qualification of the jury
2. Jury characteristics: perception and judgment
3. The group decision of the jury

In the Law of the Jury (art. 8) the criteria of competence and qualification of citizens who provide services as members of the jury they are reduced to being of legal age, knowing how to read and write, and not being affected by physical disability. However, certain qualified professions are exempt from jury duty (lawyers, forensic doctors, police, legislators and political class, members of the Administration of Justice, officials of Penitentiary Institutions... (art.10). From this prohibition it follows that many social groups are not represented in the popular participation of Justice.

In other countries, it has been observed that there are groups of the population that participate little in this new judicial body: women and upper-middle classes (Levine, 1976); although it can be explained not by social discrimination, but by possibility (also included in this Law; art, 12) to excuse themselves to act as a jury for work or workload reasons (childcare, public service professions such as doctors ...).

Despite this, in this Law, the selective system, based on census lists, not only guarantees the absence of social discrimination in the selection of the jury, but also encourages participation. In U.S.A. Also, this method is used, although it creates many distortions and discriminations: in 1967 the population The US voter was 114 million but only 80 million had registered to vote (Linquist, 1967).

The Jury Law seeks to reconcile the right to participate in this judicial body with the right to seek a certain pluralism and impartiality Therefore, it includes the right to challenge, which will be made without allegation of reasons. Prudently, this possibility has been limited to the exclusion of four jurors for each of the parties in ligio (art. 21 and 40). The consequences of an absence of limitation could be dire, since this procedural possibility can be a source of bias and discrimination. Although its objective is to create a potentially impartial jury, in practice each of the parties will challenge those candidates who, due to their psychological or sociological characteristics consider they will not be inclined by the point of view presented by the Public Prosecutor's Office or the lawyers of the parts.

This reality has also been recognized by legal professionals. Thus J.R. Palacio, professor of Criminal Law published: “the lawyers will have to display all their zeal and their talents as psychologists to challenge, with or without cause, those candidates who deem hostile ”.

A fundamental issue has also been raised: knowing to what extent lay people in law are capable of taking impartial judicial decisions taking into account only the proven facts and the law pertinent to the case. The answer is that juries prove to be quite competent in their decisions. Kalven and Zeisel (1966) compared jury verdicts with judges' decisions across 3,576 cases. In 78% of the cases there was agreement. Of the 22% of the cases in which they did not agree, the Jury was more benevolent in 19%, while the judges were more benevolent in the remaining 3%. Thus, and in the words of Garzón "a main factor of disparity refers to attitudinal aspects of both groups and not so much to the difference in their level of competence and qualification."

However, the Law of the Jury Court takes into account that juries are citizens not professionalized in the judicial function and it has selected those crimes that are less complex in their description and conceptualization, and more accessible for their assessment by lay people. Nor has he forgotten the guiding work of the Judge, who, although he will not give personal opinions, will be able to advise the Jury and instruct them on the purpose of the verdict (art. 54 and 57).

The individual characteristics, and the transitory states of the juries, the perception of the judicial actors, and the factors Structural aspects of the legal process (order and form of presentation of arguments) can be the source of biases in the juries; They are initial impressions that can generate prejudices about the guilt or not of the accused before hearing any evidence. Some predictions can be formed from the psychological and social characteristics of the jurors. Studies, with mock juries, show a greater benevolence of women than men in their verdicts. However, in certain crimes (rape, murder, automobile homicides due to negligence) the trend is reversed (Garzón, 1986).

Factors like age, social class and education They also seem to influence: “there is a certain relationship between adulthood, higher educational level and low social class with the guilty verdict” (Garzón, 1986). Specifically, in rape cases, it has been observed (Sobral, Arce and Fariña, 1989) that juries with a low level of education are more in favor of guilt than those with a higher level. It has also been found (Simon, 1967) that university juries are less lenient than non-university juries in cases of mental derangement.

People with conservative political attitudes, and those with authoritarian personality traits lean towards tougher individual decisions on their verdicts, although this decreases as the strength of the evidences. This trend interacts with other factors. As long as they exist differential characteristics between the accused and the jury, the trend is reinforced, but if the accused is from a high social stratum or a public authority, the trend is reversed (Kaplan and Garzón, 1986). In relation to age, there seems to be a benevolence bias in young juries. Specifically, those in their 30s are more benevolent than those older age, especially those with little jury service experience (Sealy and Cornisa, 1973).

In relation to the individual characteristics, the influence of transitory states in the preparation of judgments. These would be, for example, physical discomfort, painful conditions, bad news, daily events,... During the oral hearing it was observed that certain Behaviors that produce negative effects on the jury (frustration, anger, delay, ...) can lead to harsher verdicts, especially if the incitement The defense attorney's attribution of responsibility for the facts comes from, and only in individual trials prior to deliberation (Kaplan and Miller, 1978: cited in Kaplan. 1989).

In any case, the studies that have tried to relate personality and social characteristics with the decisions of the juries, influence and pressure of the group have been a certain failure. In general, in studies with mock trials, the percentage that explains verdicts, based on these characteristics, is very low. The conclusion reached is that both personality traits and characteristics, as well as transitory states, are internal factors that affect initial judgment and impression. Differing in that personality characteristics are more stable and general traits that do not affect so directly in specific situations, they are permanent predispositions to judge. Transient states, on the other hand, are due to situational conditions, are more specific, and induce more intense and temporary states, affecting a specific judgment or assessment to a greater extent. In trials by jury, a series of dynamics appear between the various judicial actors that generate a series of attitudes in the members of the jury. Your perception of the accused, witness or attorney will create an initial impression that will influence your decision making task.

The defendant's physical attraction, sympathy, attitudinal similarity between the jury and the defendant is a factor of benevolence (Kerr and Bray, 1982). Specifically, the influence of physical attractiveness is greater in men than in women (Penrod and Hastie, 1983). This is explained from the hypothesis that people with pleasant physical traits tend to be perceived with personality traits positive and they tend to justify their unwanted actions as a result of external and situational factors not as a result of their own behavior, and on the other hand, when there are similarities (attitudinal, work) between people, a positive attitude is created between them (Aronson, 1985); all this generates a less severe tendency in the Jury's decision. Some studies (for example, Unner and Cols, 1980) show that older defendants receive harsher sentences than the youngest, while others (Tiffany and Cols 1978) obtain these results only in certain combinations crime / offender.

It has also been observed (Feldman and Rosen, 1978) that the attribution of responsibility for criminal acts is determined by whether or not they are carried out in a group. The jurors consider that the defendant is more responsible and deserving of a harsher sentence if he has carried out the act alone: ​​to be that they take into account the influence and pressure of the group.

The witness perception and the information they provide has also been studied. In witnesses there are certain factors that, despite not being real evidence, have persuasive power: prestige of the witness, physical attractiveness, way of testifying... Credibility is perceived and interpreted through the behaviors of the witnesses: if the witnesses show confidence in their statements (in many cases after being trained by lawyers) are judged safer and more credible by juries (Weils et al., 1981). It will also help to be perceived as more credible if the witnesses are extraverted and moderately relaxed (Miller and Burgoon, 1982). On the other hand, it seems that juries when giving credibility to testimonies trust more when given by police officers than when given by civilians (Cliford and Bull, 1978).

The conclusions about the characteristics of the victim reveal their influence on the impressions of the jurors Jones and Aronson (1973) analyze the impact of the victim's social attractiveness if the victim has low social attractiveness, juries recommend shorter sentences than when it is high It seems that more responsibility is attributed to the victim in committing the crime Physical attractiveness does not affect guilt, although in Rape offenses have an influence: male juries recommend longer sentences when the victim is more physically attractive (Thornton, 1978). The attitude of lawyers also influences how they are perceived and evaluated by juries. Garzón (1986) has verified that if the defense attitude is positive towards the arguments and evidence of the prosecutor and also has a good knowledge of them and uses them in his own arguments, the attitude of the jury will be more favorable towards he. On the other hand, if this positive and cordial attitude comes from the prosecutor towards the defense, the jury evaluates it negatively.

Regarding the impact of conduct and attitude of the judge towards the jurorsIt seems that there is a relationship between the verdict of the Jury and the conduct of the judge towards the lawyers; that is, favoritism, reprimands, reactions to lawyers... on the part of the judge, affect the preferences of the jury (Kerr, 1982) The Law opportunely enables several measures so that the judge does not influence the jury, such as the express obligation to avoid making any reference to his inclination towards any of the parties, and the need for the deliberation to be done in secret and alone (art. 54 and 56).

On the other hand, the Law of the Jury Court recognizes the importance that unproven information and evidence may have in individual trials and consequently requires the Judge that, before the deliberation, warn the jurors of the need not to attend in their considerations "to those evidential means whose illegality or nullity had been declared by him" (art. 54). But despite these instructions, juries (except those with authoritarian tendencies) do not accept them and tend to comment on this information in their deliberations (Cornish, 1973). One possible explanation, from Kassin and Wrights-man (1979), is that these instructions are given after after the oral hearing, when the jurors already have a vision about what happened and have made their ratings. The study by Elwork and Cols (1974) finds that the best way to ensure its effectiveness is to give instructions before the start of the hearing and at the end of the hearing.

The information presented during the trial and its perception and integration by the juries creates a set of judgments and impressions that can determine the decisions of each member of the Jury. This Law (explanatory memorandum, II) calls for a change in the way of exposing content and allegations. It calls for the elimination of judicial and normative language, but, implicitly, gives way to the use of less rational language and the persuasive skills of lawyers.

When it comes to persuading and convincing the Jury, emotional information that highlights the concrete, the anecdote, produces the greatest impact; This type of exposure will create a greater cognitive impact than if a more abstract and intellectual language is used and will therefore be better remembered (Aronson, 1985).

The world of law does not escape these details. In the newsletter of the Bizkaia Bar Association, it appeared "the lawyers must have well present... that the conviction mechanisms of a Jury Tribunal and Magistrates The professional judiciary acts basically in an "intellectual" way, in the Jury the "emotional" tends to prevail. As important as science, are the gifts of conviction and knowing how to make an "attractive" exhibition.

In Psychology, the effects of the order of presentation of information are known: if two arguments are presented then and there is a time interval until the decision towards one of them, the primacy effect of the first argument. On the other hand, if the interval occurs between the presentation of the two arguments, the second will have a recent effect that will make it more efficient. Voilrath (1980) points out that, in his investigations with mock juries (manipulating the order of presentation of the parts), he has observed the effect than recent in the presentation phase of cases, that is, the evidence presented last has more effect on the members of the Jury.

The Law of the Jury Court (art. 45, 46 and 52) and the Criminal Procedure Law (art. 793) state that the defense attorney will present his allegations and considerations, and will always interrogate after the intervention of the prosecution attorney. Based on the aforementioned investigations, our procedural system favors the defense (accused), although these effects would be mediated by the process of constant interaction that occurs during the trial between lawyers and by the aforementioned credibility factors of defendants, witnesses and lawyers.

Another bias appears at the time when a defendant must be tried for several crimes at the same time (possibility included in this Law, art. 5) since juries are more severe when several charges are presented in a trial than when one is presented in isolation. In this type of multiple trials the jurors are influenced by the evidence and charges previously presented and as a consequence the The verdict of the first count influences the second: it seems that the jury infers that the defendant has a criminal character (Tanford and Penrod, 1984). These data confirm those provided by McCorthy and Lindquist (1985) who observed less benevolence in trials if the defendants had prior records. A greater severity has also been shown in experienced juries than in new ones. However, there is an exception: juries who have previously acted in criminal trials serious and later in misdemeanors, are in favor of lighter sentences (Nagao and Davis, 1980). In fact, the Jury Law aims to eliminate this bias by accentuating the temporary and participatory nature of this judicial body: for each judicial cause will be held a lottery for the configuration of a jury court (art 18), dissolving this once the trial is concluded (art. 66).

The whole set of extralegal information they create a perceptual scheme from which judicial information (evidence, facts ...) is valued; the personal judgments of the members of the jury will be the product of these two types of information. Consequently, the integration of both will depend on the value attributed to them and the amount in which such information is taken into account. Therefore, the more value they have and the more elements and evidence are handled, the less force extralegal information will have and less influence the trends and biases they generate (Kapian, 1983).

However, most of the studies discussed do not include the deliberation processes, which in fact will be the ones modify individual judgments. Therefore, we must refer to the observations of group decision-making to configure our conclusions. Thus, once the jurors have gathered all the information during the trial and created an opinion personnel must make a single majority decision, which is the one that exclusively interests the Justice. Therefore, group deliberation will determine the final verdict. The discussion will have a beneficial effect: individual judgments and impressions are reoriented by groups, and As a consequence, the effects of unreliable information tend to disappear after deliberation (Simon, 1968).

It has been observed (for example, Kapian and Miller, 1978) that both the effects of the characteristics individual states, as transitory states tend to disappear in the sentence, with the deliberation. The same effect was found by Izzet and Leginski (1974), with the trends generated by the characteristics of the accused and the victim.

How are the effects of biases alleviated? In the deliberation, information is discussed and handled that had not been taken into account before, or that had been forgotten; As a consequence, if the information shared consists of legally presumed facts and not in extralegal and biased information, the effect of the initial impression is reduced, and other biases are reduced. Ultimately, if relevant and valid facts are confronted and discussed during the deliberation, the information and Less reliable evidence will suffer, and therefore individual biases will be less (Kaplan, 1989). As we can see, a series of circumstances appear within the groups that affect their function and development. Two lines of research stand out in the analysis of these factors: the decision-making process (phenomena of influence, jury orientation and degree of participation) and legal decision factors (decision rule and size group).

On group deliberations Two types of influence can be distinguished (Kaplan, 1989): informative and normative, and phenomena such as the majority effect, benevolence bias, and polarization.

The influence to accept information (evidence, facts ...) from other members is the so-called informational influence. Normative influence involves conforming to the expectations of others in order to win their approval. These influences can lead to the creation of majorities and conformity: the first, as a consequence of the creation of a group of members with arguments similar that will dominate the discussion and introduce more information, and the other, due to the need not to win social disapproval (De Paul, 1991).

In most of the Jury's decisions, the majority rule prevails: the group decision is determined by the initial majority. Kalven and Zeisel (1966) found that of 215 juries in which there was an initial majority in a first vote, only 6 reached a decision other than that defended by that majority. However, this effect is related to the type of task: if it is judgmental or evaluative, the majority rule appears, but if rational questions are debated, the correct preference prevails, even if it is not the initially majority (De Paul, 1991). Less frequent is the triumph of the minority: it depends on its being consistent in maintaining its opinion over time (Moscovi, 1981).

The tendency towards benevolence modifies the influence exerted by the majority: there will be a greater probability that the verdict will be that of the majority, when it is acquittal (Davis, 1981). Groups that support innocence are more influential; For Nemeth this must be because it is easier to defend this position: you just have to focus on some fault; the arguments to condemn must be more convincing and secure.

Sometimes the phenomenon of polarization arises: with the increase of information that confirms a position, produces an increase in confidence in one's opinion, and consequently, personal and group judgment becomes more extreme. That is to say (Nemeth, 1982), in a case in which individual judgment predisposes to innocence, after arguing, the group's position is more lenient.

The disposition and situational conditions of the group affect its objective: the development of the deliberation will depend on whether the group is oriented to the group (to encourage participation and cohesion) or to the task (to decide a verdict) (Kaplan, 1989 and Hampton, 1989).

When there is a group disposition, the functioning, as a working group to make a decision, will not be favored. The type of information that is handled is the regulations. In these situations, what matters to the members of the group are the socio-emotional relationships; the goal sought is consensus and group cohesion.

If the disposition is to the task, the objective will be to achieve a solution and an objective decision; the information that will flow will be informative. With this, the group will see its "productivity" positively affected.

Rugs and Kaplan (1989) observed, in various groups of jurors, how these conditions affect. Jurors who were in a trial of long duration, or had already participated in several trials together, gave more importance and were more affected by their relationships, and were more inclined to care about their feelings and preferences. Something different happened with the groups of jurors that only participated in the decision-making of a single trial. The goal was unique; they tended to be more focused on the task, as the members did not know each other, and were not affected by their relationships: "productivity" increased.

Therefore the judge's instructions they will mark the development of the debate. The Jury Law (art. 54 and 57), through the magistrate's instructions, intends that the jurors guide their work towards the deliberation and voting on the sentence, and focus their efforts on not delaying the verdict and on deciding on a judgment. In fact "none of the jurors may abstain from voting" (art. 58). It would be different if the proposal were that the members of the jury strive to keep the group cohesive and focused on participation, as a means to reach a decision that achieves the satisfaction of each of they.

When debating and deliberating, the juries will try to convince and persuade the other members of the group. The personal influence of each will depend on factors of social perception such as credibility, status, degree of participation in the debate, group size, decision rules (majority or unanimity).

In the Jury group discussionAs in any debate, not all members participate in the same way. Certain sectors such as people with a low cultural level, low social classes, the youngest and oldest members participate less and are more persuasive (Penrod and Hastie, 1983).

These same researchers found that males are significantly more persuasive than females. Also, it has been proven that people with more experience as a member of a Jury Court tend to participate more, and persuade and influence to a greater extent, becoming more easily the leaders of the group (Werner, 1985). To these data it must be added that, in parallel, in the deliberation groups there is a tendency to form subgroups according to their social and cultural characteristics... (Davis, 1980).

Regarding the size of the group, the Law of the Jury Court dictates that it will be made up of nine members (art. 2). Five-member juries are common in Europe, and in the USA. they are usually more extensive. Research (Bermat, 1973) in the US, comparing juries of six or twelve members, suggests that this does not influence the verdict. Despite this, the largest juries, logically, are more representative of the community; they will also handle more information, argue more, and take longer to decide (Hastie et al., 1983).

Finally, for the decision rule, the Law (art. 59 and 60) marks that this will be by majority: seven votes of the nine to determine that they consider the facts to be proven, on the contrary, five will be necessary to determine that they are not proven. The same proportions to declare or not the accused guilty, and for the possible conditional remission of the sentence, as well as for the pardon.

It has been shown that there is a relationship between the number of jurors and the type of decision rule (unanimity or majority). A study that certifies this is Davis and Kerr (1975); handling the number of jurors (six or twelve) and the decision rule, he verified that: -in cases in which It must be decided by majority, less time and fewer votes are used than if it were by unanimity. -when the decision rule is unanimous, the twelve-member juries need more time to deliberate and a greater number of votes than those of six.

In the words of Oskamp (1984) "when a jury reaches the required majority, what they do is simply stop deliberating, thus preventing the minority from exercising an influence that could perhaps drag some votes towards its position". Kaplan and Miller (1987) point out that unanimity creates in the group the need to influence in the most extreme and exert greater pressure towards unanimity, using normative influence to a greater extent.

These circumstances were taken into account when drafting the Law. And for this reason, in his explanatory statement, he renounces the decision unanimously, which despite "fostering a richer debate,... it can imply a high risk of failure,... due to the simple and unjustifiable obstinacy of one or a few jurors ".

With all that seen, despite the fact that the Law intends that the trials be guided only by the evidence and information shown, the juries are permeable to other types of information. But, we must not forget that any human activity is subject to external and personal influences. For this reason, the influence of the lawyers will probably be a function of their ability to intensify the Jury biases: characteristics of the jurors, preparation of witness statements, presentation of tests...

On the other hand, possible doubts about the preparation of citizens to exercise the right to judge, are questioned by the data provided above: in the In most cases, lay persons in law are as competent and qualified as the professionals of the magistracy in the task of prosecuting certain facts (Garzón, 1986).

In fact, too, the judges' decisions are determined by their own discretion. and subjectivity, because as Levy-Bruhi says it is an "eternal problem and will never have a solution" (quoted in De Angel, 1986). In conclusion, we think that knowing these biases, and instructing the juries to identify them, together with the management of Relevant information and evidence may be the means to avoid their influence on the verdicts of the Courts by juries. If not, perhaps, we would have to answer the promise of the jurors with a: "yes,.. I'll try".

This article is merely informative, in Psychology-Online we do not have the power to make a diagnosis or recommend a treatment. We invite you to go to a psychologist to treat your particular case.

If you want to read more articles similar to Jury psychosocial factors, we recommend that you enter our category of Legal psychology.

• 1. Organic Law of the Jury Court of May 22, 1995. State official newsletter. May 23, 1995.
• 2. GARZON, A. (1986): "Social Psychology and Courts of Justice" in Jiménez, F. and Clemente, M. (1986) "Social Psychology and Penal System". Madrid. University Alliance.
• 3. PALACIO, J.R. (1995): “The lawyer in the Jury Court procedure”. Informative bulletin of the illustrious Bar Association of Bizkaia ”.
• 4. KAPLAN, M. F. (1989): "Psychological factors in the conduct of juries", in Garzón, A (1989): "Psychology and justice". Valencia. Promolibro.
• 5. SOBRAL, J., ARCE, R., and FARIÑA, F. (1989): "Psychosocial aspects of judicial decisions: revision and differentiated reading". Psychology Bulletin, in Garzón, A. (1990): "Psychology and Juries". Valencia. Promolibro.
• 6. KAPLAN, M. F. and GARZON, A. (1986): "Judicial Cognition". Psychology Bulletin, in Garzón (1990), op. cit.
• 7. DE PAUL, P. (1991): “The deliberation process in the jury”. Madrid. Complutense University of Madrid.
• 8. KERR, N. L. and BRAY. R. M. (1983): "The Psychology of the courtroom". New York. Academic Press.
• 9. ARONSON. AND. (1985): "The social animal". Madrid. Alliance.
• 10. MARTINA. (1988): "The sentence from the psychosocial point of view". Psychology Bulletin., In Garzón, A. (1990), op. cit.
• 11. MIRA, J. J. and DIGES, M. (1983): "Psychologists, Psychology and Testimony". Behavior Analysis and Modification, 9, 234-270.
• 12. "Criminal Procedure". Madrid. Legislation Library. Civic.
• 13. HAMFTON, D. &