An analysis of the effects of subjective and objective instruction forms on mock-juries' murder/manslaughter distinctions.

Abstract

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.

Intentional or Negligent Homicide? Evidence for Juror Decision Making

“…Italian legal context, using some elements from psychological research (Malle & Knobe, 1997;Spackman et al, 2002).…”

“…Psychological research recently showed that there are several factors that influence the attribution of intentionality. For example, Spackman, Belcher, Calapp, and Taylor (2002) and Spackman, Belcher, Cramer, and Delton (2006) highlighted the importance of jurors' a priori theories about emotions on the perception of defendant's responsibility through the observation of some mock-jurors' deliberation periods. The results showed that defendants who had a history of violence toward the victim and who intended their actions and dwelt upon or were overwhelmed with their emotions were mostly likely to be convicted of a murder rather than a manslaughter.…”

Advances in Psychology and Law

“…This is problematic because poor juror comprehension not only contravenes the law's intent, but can sometimes also result in worse outcomes for criminal defendants or civil litigants (Hastie et al, 1998 ;Spackman, Belcher, Calapp, & Taylor, 2002 ).…”

Mitigating Implicit Racial Bias Among Criminal Court Jurors: Intervention Through Instruction

“…However, the largest body of work on this issue, and work that has perhaps had the most significant impact on the legal perspectives of instructions' comprehensibility, is on the specific language used in the instructions (e.g., Finkel, 2000;Severance & Loftus, 1982;Spackman, Belcher, Calapp, & Taylor, 2002).…”

“…Furthermore, more recent empirical studies have looked more precisely at the influence of specific instruction language on jury verdict outcomes. For instance, Spackman, Belcher, Calapp, and Taylor (2002) examined whether instructions with objective versus subjective language affected mock juries' murder/manslaughter distinctions as well as jurors' reported reasons for their verdicts and definitions of murder and manslaughter. A sample of 366 undergraduate students, participating in forty 12-juror mock trials, were randomly assigned one of three possible cases, with random assignment to the objective or subjective instruction condition, equally distributed for each case.…”