The effects of a victim impact statement and gender on juror information processing in a criminal trial: Does the punishment fit the crime?

Abstract

This study examined the effects of a victim impact statement (VIS) and gender on decision-making. A total of 238 jury-eligible participants from the community were randomly assigned to one of eight versions of a heinous murder trial, based on a real case. Half the participants received a VIS, while the remainder did not. In addition, the design manipulated offender and victim gender. When no VIS was presented, male defendants received harsher sentences than females. The inclusion of the VIS decreased the disparity, resulting in a more severe sentence for the female, while the male offender's sentence was unaffected. The harsher sentence appeared to be the result of an increase in the perceived deviancy (as measured by volition and future dangerousness) of the female offender, due to the VIS. This interpretation was supported by the higher ratings of “anger” against the female defendant when the VIS was included. The sentences rendered by male jurors were predicted by the ratings of “future dangerousness”, “volition”, and the VIS, whereas the sentencing of females was predicted only by future dangerousness and volition scores. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Notes

Copies of the manuscript utilised can be obtained by writing to the first author.

The judicial instructions were written in line with New South Wales legislation. However, all pertinent details were checked by a Queensland judge and confirmed to be equally applicable to Queensland law.

Except where otherwise stated, Super Anova was used to analyse the data with p set at .05.

An interaction was also obtained for Emotion Type, Offender Gender and Victim Gender, F(2,444) = 3.61, p < .05. Participants were most angry when the offender was a female and the victim was a male (M = 3.36, SD = 1.24), rather than when the victim was a female (M = 2.80, SD = 1.39), F(1,114) = 5.22, p < .05. There was no significant difference between the emotive ratings for the male and female victims, when the offender was a male. This may be a result either of the higher value attributed to males in our society (Goodman, Loftus, Miller, & Greene, 1991), or the relative status of the parties.