Summary: Mock Juries

Decision making in juries
To study the decision making of juries mock juries and shadow juries are used ( i.e. ‘real’ juries are not used as this is banned by law). Mock juries do a role play of a case, shadow juries observe a real case then discuss guilt/innocence but their opinion is not given to the real court. In mock juries variables such as the characteristics of the defendant can be controlled, however the group may not be representative of a randomly selected jury, scenarios may not be as complex as those in reality and the situations lack consequences – they are not true to life (lacking ecological validity).
The majority influence may have an impact on the decision making of juries, and this is where a larger number of people
Moscovici argued that Asch had put too much emphasis on the idea of the majority having a large influence on the minority. According to Moscovici it is also possible for the minority to influence the majority. He demonstrated the minority influence in a laboratory situation which was perhaps not representative of what must take place if it were to be successful in a jury. It is not as powerful as majority influence so has fewer implications for the decision making. Another reason why minority influence may have less of an impact is that in Britain a jury doesn’t have to be unanimous for a conviction – a majority agreement would suffice. There is some dispute over what behavioural characteristics contribute to a minority gaining influence over a majority. Individuals must be consistent and flexible, and Nemeth states that when a minority stick to a consistent argument it causes the majority to question their own views and scrutinise the minority view, possibly ending with the majority being persuaded by the minority view. However, they need to be consistent in their opinions over time and willing to discuss why they disagree with the majority rather than being rigid. Larger minorities are more effective than lone dissenters in mock juries (Tindale et al) and increasing numbers have greater effect (Wood et al). Increasing minorities cannot be easily
The characteristics of the defendant have also been shown to influence judges and juries, which include physical attractiveness and ethnicity. People hold stereotypes that criminals have a certain type of facial appearance, which is believed to be unattractive. Attractive people are likely to be thought of as happy, intelligent and truthful individuals not capable of being criminals. Evidence comes from Saladin et al who conducted an experiment and found that unattractive men were considered more likely to commit crimes such as murder and armed robbery than attractive men. Futhur, Downs and Lyons investigated 1500 real defendants and found attractiveness and amount of fine to be negatively correlated, so perhaps looks do play a part in the sentencing and verdict. This study has quite a large sample of defendants so improving the reliability of the findings of attractiveness. However, it is also a correlational study so it only shows a relationship between attractiveness and influence on juries and does not establish cause and effect. Even though many studies provide evidence that physical attractiveness can reduce sentencing, it has been found that if a criminal is perceived as using their attractiveness in the crime for their own gain e.g. Fraud, jurors would penalise them for