Psy and Law exam 4 Flashcards
(133 cards)
1
Q
Kalven & Zeisel & Eisenberg cases
A
judges and juries agree 75% of the time, but juries are more sympathetic to defendant & more likley to acquit since they are swayed more by extralegal factors
2
Q
Kalven & Zeisel w/civil cases
A
disagreement rates are equal, not as clear of an outcome on who jurors will be sympathetic too
3
Q
jury selection & service act
A
jury pool must be representative of the corss-section of the community
- leads to better decision making and fact finding, and makes the trial more fair (Ellis & Diamond)
4
Q
exceptions to being pulled for jury
A
deaf, blind, mentally impaired, non-english speakers, former felons, non u.s. citizens
used to include doctors, firefighters, veterinarians, pediatrists, phone operators, and embamers
5
Q
jury exemption pros and cons
A
pro: don’t have time, out of work, college students, safety
cons: not representative of entire population
6
Q
Dennis V. united states
A
all defendants have the right to question potential jurors to determine if there is any prejudice
7
Q
extended voir dire
A
each potential juror questioned individually
8
Q
challenges for cause
A
the right to exclude jurors because there is a specific/significant reason why they’re not fair, unbiased, or capable (unlimited amount)
9
Q
peremptory challenges
A
exclude jurors for no reason (limited amount)
10
Q
lawyers goals in vior dire
A
eleminate unfavorable and pick jurors who will help their side, influence individuals who will end up on actual jury
11
Q
united states V. Delinger
A
Goal of legal system is to discover any grounds
12
Q
Batson V. Kentucky
A
lawyers cannot use preemptory challenges to exclude jurors based on race
13
Q
Edmonson V. Leesville concrete co
A
perempotry challenges of excluding someone based on race is for both civil and criminal cases
14
Q
JEB V. Alabama
A
can’t use peremptory challenges to get rid of someone based on gender
15
Q
implicit personality theories
A
lawyers draw conclusions based on group memberships. believing these individuals have similar personalities
16
Q
dominant juror
A
strong willed juror who will drive verdict
17
Q
similarity-leniency hypothesis
A
if juror is similar to defendant they’ll be more lenient
18
Q
juror demographics
A
men more active role, higher SES more prone to convict defendant, black jurors more lenient on defendant
19
Q
amount of prior jury experience
A
served on jury before - harsher on defendants than those who haven’t
20
Q
internal V. external locus of control
A
internal leads to more convictions
21
Q
authoritarianism on jury decision making
A
respect for authority figures are more likely to convict and giver harsher sentences
22
Q
belief in a just world on jury decision making
A
more likely to blame victim and be extra though on defendant
23
Q
effectiveness of lawyers
A
only effective to small degree when evidence is ambiguous
24
Q
legal attitudes questionare
A
used for jury selection, tells if they have a pro prosecution or defense bias
25
case-specific approaches
how do jurors feel about specific cases, harder and more expensive but more accurate
26
using trial consultants
analyze how jurors form narratives of evidence, and relate to demographics/personal characteristics
27
- techniques of trial consultants are successful, but may be due to...
-weak/controversial evidence involved in trial
-lengthy & complex trials allowing for jury characteristics to have greater impact on result
- attorneys hiring trial consultants may naturally work harder for clients
* if life or death situations they may be worth it
28
what trial consultant can do
help with witness preperation, presentation of attorneys/witnesses, provide another perspective for attorneys, train attorneys, and conduct post-trail interviews to help further cases
29
false-consensus effect
people overestimate the extent to which other people think, feel and behave like them
30
stack & sway (krussel & krussel)
trail consultants can predict how jury will decide to stack/sway jury/case
31
story model
jurors will form a coherent story on who it happened so attorneys should give them one
- between presenting evidence in order of strength or in story order, story order is more convincing
32
prepared witness
should not be about telling them what to say but helping them cope, communicate well & be more persuasive (also might be helpful to change superficial aspects)
33
ethical problems w/ trial consultants
only available if rich, "buying" verdict
34
trial consultant reforms
ban trial consultants, greater restriction on vior dire questioning, reducing/eliminating peremptory challenges, require consultants to share info w/other side, professional licences & standards for jury consultants
35
pretrial publicity
case of freedom of the press (1st) and guarantee of a fair trial among peers (6th) conflicting
36
united states V. Burr
jurors are not required to have no knowledge or preconceptions about the case, but when they agree they can no longer be fair, they cannot serve
37
Irvan V. Dowd
first case in the Supreme court struck down the conviction on the grounds of prejudical publicity
38
Rideau V. Louisiana
exposure to news that includes information strongly pointing towards guilt was in violation of due process due to biased jury pool
39
Sheppard V. Maxwell
judges should delay a trial or relocate when prejudicial news is prevalent
40
Nebraska press association V. Stuard
a trial judge can only issue a gag order if they can prove that the news could prevent a fair trial
41
Richmond newspapers, inc. V. virginia
the press cannot be barred from attending & reporting a trial (1st amendment)
42
Gannett co. V. Depasquale
press can be excluded from pretrial hearings because of potentially prejudicial material that may not even be allowed in the courtroom
43
MuMin V. Virginia
defendants do not have the constitutional right to ask prospective jurors about the specifics of the pretrial publicity to which they have been exposed: only need to know if they have been exposed if it will affect them from being fair
- most judges believe a juror's ability to be impartial
44
those exposed to pretrial publicity
know more about case, more likely to have prejudice, more knowledgeable of incriminating facts that may be inadmissible in court
45
General pretrial publicity
those who consume info about trials in general tend to be biased against dependents and think people are more likely to be guilty
46
Factorial V. emotional pretrial publicity
emotional increases guilty verdict over factual, is hard to undo, and influences what they think caused the crime
47
what to do about pretrial publicity: continuance
postpone trial until media dies down, people do have poor memory over time but emotional pretrial publicity doesn't fade as much
48
what to do about pretrial publicity: expanded vior dire
help identify jurors that would be more objective, not super effective but better than nothing
49
what to do about pretrial publicity: judicial instructions
not effective, better if judge attacks media
50
what to do about pretrial publicity: imported jurors
expensive and rarely used but effective
51
what to do about pretrial publicity: change of venue
most effective but time consuming and inconvenient - psychologists must have evidence that area is biased
52
incompetence of jurors
defendant's appearance, lawyers ability, pretrial publicity, and inadmissible evidence have a large impact on jurors
but...
evidence is still main determinant as conviction goes up as evidence does, and if judge thought evidence was strong jurors do too
53
schemas
jurors have their own ideas on what crimes should be like, adaptive as they tell you what to pay attention to (if matches scheme), & makes inferences - formed early and influence what jury remembers
54
due process theory of attitude change (Eagly & Chiaiken)
someone's attitude may be changed in two ways
- central: swayed by quality of arguements, focus on evidence
-peripheral: focuses on extraneous details
-follow central route if motivated and able
55
Kalven and Zeisel liberation hypothesis
when the evidence in a case clearly favors one side, juries will decide the case in favor of that side
- but if evidence strongly points to one side jurors will base decision on extraneous details
56
Attribution theory
the process of explaining or inferring the causes of events - when hear information about prior records jurors make attribution that this is the kind of person who commits crime
57
fundamental attribution error
people tend to overestimate the influence of internal attributes on behavior and underestimate the external environment
58
multiple charges (joinder)
criminals are more likely to be convicted of any single charge when it is added to other charges, then when tried for one charge alone
- exception is sex crimes where prior crimes show character
59
attribution
personality is stable over time, behavior not situationally dependent
60
reactance theory
when a freedom is threatened, we will find some way to restore it so when they tell us not to do something we want to do it more
-inadmissible evidence, juries find it difficult to disregard
61
thought suppression
when trying to suppress a thought at first it becomes more accessible
62
automatic believing, effortful unbelieving
automatically accept everything we hear
63
inadmissible evidence reform
videotape trial but jurors more engage when in person
warm then before trial
secure a public commitment that the juror won't consider extralegal info
64
concerns about expert testimony
whether jurors are able to evaluate it fairly, opinion testimony doesn't rely on physical features of expert but maybe expert's professionalism, jurors were skeptical of experts and realized opinion could be biased, jurors say they rely on sound science but cannot always tell good science from flawed science
65
jury deliberation problems
jurors spend 20% of time deciphering judges instructions, judge unwilling to clarify since it could mean an appeal
66
jury deliberation reforms
give juror instructions before trial, provide a schematic framework for the information before trial, make instructions simpler
- jurors usually form an opinion before trial ends
67
jury nullification
jury can disregard instructions, evidence, and law and acquit as they represent the consciousness of the community
68
Ducan V. Louisiana
right to jury trial if charge is serious
69
U.S. V. Dougherty
attorney not allowed to tell jurors they can nullify law
70
people V. Williams
judge can dismiss juror who doesn't follow instructions
71
Horowitz 1988
more likely to acquit sympathetic defendants when they were told they could nullify
72
Change evidence evaluation
concerns about what is just and moral rather than what is lawful when told about jury nullification
73
complex cases
juries ability to understand varies, better if give them info they can review, knowledgeable jurors teach non knowledgeable
74
blank slate assumption
jurors can decide a case objectively w/o their life experiences/opinions having an impact - wrong
75
bias
makes interpretations based on past experience or try to fit new information into world view
76
pro-prosecution/pro-defense
general bias someone has to be in favor of prosecution or defense for any case
77
predicational distortion
fitting evidence to fit their verdict choice
78
informative social influence
use other jurors to correct misinformation
79
normative social influence
go along w/ other jurors due to pressure
80
evidence-driven deliberation
discuss evidence and then vote - more accurate
81
outcome severity
use to determine award amount but not liability
-> more severe = more responsible (due to just world theory)
82
defensive attribution
negative correlation between severity of consequences and perception of tolerability for an accident as an explanation
-> more responsible when driving recklessly & injuries were more severe
however... should separate the two but hard to do
83
assessing damages
jury talks about attorney's fees, insurance coverage, and tax but told not to
84
comparative negligence
both parties are to some extent at fault
85
double discounting
jury discounts, then judge discounts on same sentence
86
bias in civil cases
hostile towards plaintiffs, hold corporations to higher standard
87
jury online activities
raise concerns about if 6thb amendment is protected
88
jury system reforms
encourage active involvement by allowing jurors to ask questions, written instructions ahead of time, discuss evidence during trial
-> jury said they understood better but concern about deciding before end
89
purpose of punishment
general deterrence, individual deterence, incapacitation, retribution, moral outrage, rehabilitation, restitution
90
retributive goals
strictly punishment
91
utilitarian goals
punishment accomplishes a useful outcome
92
deterrence theory
(utilitarian) offender's punishment should prevent future harm doing - assumes potential criminal is rational
-> detection: harder to detect crimes need to have harsher punishment
-> publicity: private punishment serves no purpose when trying to discourage public
93
just deserts
retributive goals, punishment is end in itself, restores balance
94
indeterminate sanctions
for nonviolent offenders, not prison time
-> restorative: using punishment to restore justice and to reintegrate them into society
-> shaming: embarrassment instead of prison
95
back-end sentencing
get further punishment for violating parol/probation
96
U.S. V. booker
sentencing guidelines: judge can only consider factors provided at trial
97
restorative justice
harm-doers admit accountability, harm is repaired, harm-doer is reintegrated into society, victim encouraged to forgive
98
incarceration rates
higher then other countries, recent decrease
99
sentencing impacts
prior record, gender of defendant, gender of victim, race, type of trial (jury trial high risk, high reward because more likely to be found nonguilty but if guilty higher sentencing), type of crime, extent of offenders past record, status of offender between arrest and conviction, probation officer's sentence recommendation (84% of the time the same)
100
juvenile court disposition
only judge (no jury), approx. 60% found to be delinquent and moved to sentencing
101
juvenile court disposition options
probation at home/relative/foster care, probation and restitution to victims or community, house arrest, juvenile detention center then probation, placement in group home, drug treatment program, boot camp, correctional facility
102
life sentences for juvenile offenders
can't be mandatory or the death penalty
103
punishment for sex offenders
re-offend same as others, registration restriction (Megan's law) inconclusive on effectiveness for adults not effective for kids
104
Kansas V. Hendricks
civil commitment: committed indefinitely to a mental state hospital
105
harsh Sanctions
surgical/chemical castration - effective only on those who want to stop
106
death penalty
decreased in Missori, 60% believe its moral
two phases of death penalty trial:
guilty or not guilty, and sentencing phase: death penalty or life sentence
107
aggravating factors
help argue in favor of death penalty
108
mitigating factors
factors jury feels would argue against death penalty
109
Furman V. Georgia
U.S. supreme court abolished death penalty on the grounds of "cruel and unusual punishment" since no clear guidelines on when to give it/when it should be an option
110
Gregg V. Georgia
U.S. S.C reinstated death penalty
111
death penalty justification
eye for eye, general & specific deterrence, murders too dangerous to live
but...
death penalty doesn't affect crime rate, murders are not more violent, brutalization effect not true either (death penalty legitimizes violence but no evidence for it)
112
arguments against death penalty
moral objections, innocent executed, administered at different rates across country, race, death qualified juries
113
McClesky V. Kemp
race of victim effects sentencing for death penelty but lost because general bias exists
114
Witherspoon excludables
jurors excluded because won't consider death penalty
115
death-qualified jurors
favor prosecution, mistrust defendants/defense counsel, more crime control oriented than due process model, more likely to vote guilty
116
Atkins V. Virginia
its cruel and unusual punishment to execute intellectually disabled people
117
Thompson V. Oklahoma
anyone under 16 cannot be executed for their crime
118
Romper V. Simmons
cruel & unusual punishment to execute someone under 18
119
recidivism
re-arrest, re-conviction, resentence, return to prison w/ or w/o new sentence when violate parol
120
effective juvenile correction programs
grounded in theory, address risk factors, involve long-term treatment, multi-modal and multi-contextual, focus on developing skills, developmentally appropriate, not delivered in coercive institutional settings, services are delivered as intended
121
Risk, need, and responsivity (Andrews & Bonta)
assess risk and needs of juveniles looking at historical, contextual and personal factors
122
juvenile community based interventions
probation, school-based probation, multisystemic therapy (improves family relationships, decreases recidivism and behavior problems), Oregon treatment foster care (OTFC), functional family therapy, secure residential interventions (effective when they focus on skills, vocational training, education and mental health)
123
juvenile re-entry
pre-release planning, structured transition w/institutional aftercare, long-term re-integrative activities
124
wrap-around services
the delivery of individualized service from collaborating agencies
125
adult offenders classification
assessment of offenders in order to examine their risk and rehabilitation needs
-> LS/CMI level of service/case management inventory measure: propensity for rule violations, program outcome status, parole outcome, success of halfway house placements, maladjustment (how they adapt to prison)
126
adult community-based interventions
probation involves conditions/monitoring, specialty agencies are more effective in having offenders follow probation, workers have smaller caseloads
127
jail
pretrial people (so not all convicted) and minor offenses of no more than a year
128
incarceration/prison
all been convicted & those w/death sentence
129
role of psychologists in jail
screening, evaluating, classifying, suicide prevention, crisis intervention, case management services/re-entry, coordinating volunteers, teaching life skills, group therapy
130
Psychological consequences of imprisonment
have coping mechanisms for prison stress, worst first 6 months
131
prisionization
adjustment to prison - increased distrust of others
132
adult re-entry
includes services provided during custody, in preparation for release, during community supervision, and discharge
133
