Waiving goodbye to youth: Jurors perceive transferred juveniles differently from adults but render similar verdicts

Abstract

Juveniles are developmentally different from adults but are often treated similarly in the criminal justice system.In case processing, many juveniles are transferred to adult courts. Before case processing, many juveniles are interrogated with the same tactics used against adults. Limited research has examined jurors' decisions in juvenile transfer cases, particularly those involving confession evidence.In two studies, we built on this small line of research and extended it to examine whether jurors make different decisions for juvenile versus adult defendants with differing types of confession evidence. Participants listened to a trial that varied in defendant age (Study 1: 16, 23; Study 2: 13, 16, 23, 42), interrogation pressure (low, high), and interrogation outcome (denial, confession). They rendered a verdict and rated the defendant on dangerousness and maturity.Age did not affect verdict in either study, but it did affect perceptions of dangerousness and maturity in both studies.Study 2 replicated and extended our findings by showing that differences in dangerousness and maturity were driven by participants' preexisting stereotypes about juveniles as superpredators. Overall, jurors recognized juveniles' lesser maturity but did not account for it in their verdicts. The stigma associated with the superpredator stereotype may limit jurors' sensitivity to the developmental vulnerabilities of juvenile defendants.

The effect of confession evidence on jurors’ verdict decisions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

“…Experimental work examining mock jurors’ conviction decisions suggests that they are less likely to convict vulnerable suspects (e.g., juvenile, alcohol intoxicated) when their confessions were coerced versus voluntary (e.g., Mindthoff, Evans, et al, 2020; Mindthoff, Malloy, & Höhs, 2020; Najdowski & Bottoms, 2012). However, such findings are discrepant with survey findings (Chojnacki et al, 2008; Henkel et al, 2008; Mindthoff et al, 2018), as well as some experimental findings (e.g., Katzman et al, 2022), showing that potential jurors may not fully appreciate the dispositional risk that juvenile suspects face in the interrogation room (as expected per the fundamental attribution error). Such diversity of findings in the literature highlights the importance of conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of confession evidence on juror decision making.…”