Effects of Authoritarian, Anti-Authoritarian, and Egalitarian Legal Attitudes on Mock Juror and Jury Decisions

Abstract

The effects of authoritarian, anti-authoritarian, and egalitarian legal attitudes on verdicts by simulated jurors and juries were investigated. 360 undergraduate students in introductory psychology were classified as authoritarian, anti-authoritarian, or egalitarian in their legal attitudes on the basis of responses to the Legal Attitudes Questionnaire. An equal number (120) of each juror type was selected. They were grouped into six-person homogeneous mock juries and asked to render an individual decision prior to deliberation, an individual post-deliberation verdict, and a group decision. Prior to deliberation the authoritarian student jurors responded more punitively toward a defendant to whom they were similar. The deliberation process exerted a moderating influence, and the egalitarian student jurors were especially susceptible to this influence. Finally similarity to the defendant was the most salient factor in determining the decision, and student juries were significantly more punitive toward a defendant who was similar to them in race and socio-economic status.

Race Shapes Perceptions of Juvenile Offenders in Criminal Court1

“…When race is salient, jurors do not render more anti‐defendant judgments for a Black defendant than for a White defendant (Sommers & Ellsworth, 2001). In some instances, jurors even favor Black over White defendants (e.g., McGowen & King, 1982). But, when race is not salient, jurors do render more anti‐defendant judgments for a Black defendant than for a White defendant (Sommers & Ellsworth, 2001).…”

“…As discussed previously, when race is salient, jurors do not render more anti‐defendant judgments for a Black defendant than for a White defendant (McGowen & King, 1982; Sommers & Ellsworth, 2001). However, when race is not salient (as it might not be for men who are less likely than women to attend to racial issues), jurors render more anti‐defendant judgments for a Black defendant than for a White defendant (Sommers & Ellsworth, 2001).…”

Attitudes toward the criminal legal system: Scale development and predictors

“…Again in this sample, authoritarianism predicted ATCLS for men. These findings suggest that the importance of authoritarianism in predicting legal attitudes and behavior may be a function of the age of the subjects (primarily college students) (Boehm, 1968;Abrams and Della Fave, 1976;McGowen and King, 1982;Bowers and Waltman, 1993;Narby et al ., 1993).…”

“…Since the Boehm (1968) study, many other related legal attitudes have been found to differ between authoritarians and anti-authoritarians. In general, defendants received harsher punishments from authoritarians (McGowen and King, 1982) and from courts in conservative states (Bowers and Waltman, 1993). Authoritarians were also less supportive of legalizing victimless crimes (Abrams and Della Fave, 1976).…”

Race in the Courtroom: Perceptions of Guilt and Dispositional Attributions

“…Almost none of these studies consider the perceptions of Black jurors, and their results are inconsistent and often ambiguous. Most investigators con-clude that race plays a role in juror verdicts and sentencing 1 but some have found jurors to be biased against defendants of a different race (e.g., Klein & Creech, 1982;Sweeney & Haney, 1992), whereas others have found bias against defendants of the same race (McGowen & King, 1982). Some researchers have concluded that racial effects can be erased by judicial instruction (Pfeifer & Ogloff, 1991), by deliberation (Bernard, 1979), or by the absence of inadmissible evidence (Johnson, Whitestone, Jackson, & Gatto, 1995).…”