Defendants' emotions at the time of their crimes may potentially serve as mitigating circumstances in murder/manslaughter cases. The present study examined whether differences between two forms of instructions given juries in such cases affected mockjuries' murder/manslaughter distinctions. Jurors' reasons for their verdicts and definitions of murder and manslaughter were also compared. In addition, three factors found to be predictive of murder/manslaughter distinctions in previous research were evaluated. It was found that, though instruction forms affected jurors' stated reasons for their verdicts and their definitions of murder and manslaughter, they did not significantly affect murder/manslaughter distinctions. Defendants were most likely to be convicted of murder if they had a history of violence with the victim and dwelt upon their emotions. We suggest jurors likely construe instructions given them to fit their a priori understandings of murder, manslaughter, and the potentially mitigating role of defendants' emotions.
Anglo‐American law instructs jurors that defendants' emotions might constitute mitigating circumstances in murder/manslaughter cases. The present study examined which aspects of defendants' emotions mock jurors take into consideration when determining their murder/manslaughter verdicts. Four factors found to be predictive of perceptions of emotional intensity in previous research were shown to be predictive of murder/manslaughter convictions. These factors included whether the defendant had a history of violence with the victim, the particular emotion experienced, whether the defendant dwelt upon the feelings associated with his or her emotion, and whether the defendant intended the actions associated with his or her emotion. These findings are compared with two approaches that the law has taken to evaluate defendants' emotions: objective standards and subjective standards. Ramifications of these findings for jury instructions as well as for the law's conception of emotion are discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.