Abstract
Terror management theory posits that fear of death influences judgments in criminal cases. A between-subjects study examined the influence of mortality and terrorism salience in the context of life-threatening versus non-threatening criminal conduct on mock jurors’ emotions and judgments of convictions by 485 jury-eligible Australian citizens. Mortality salience did not impact upon mock jurors’ judgments, indicating that exposure to a criminal trial mitigated the effect. The participants reported more negative emotions with a suspect charged with a terrorism than non-terrorism crime, independently of criminal conduct. Mock jurors were more likely to convict a suspected terrorist (66.4%) than a defendant charged with murder when the criminal conduct entailed throwing a paint bomb (54.0%). When the actus reus was life-threatening, they were more likely to convict a defendant charged with intent to murder (81.5%) than with a terrorist crime (69.7%). The findings indicated that jurors can be influenced by numerous factors at court, including fear of death.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful for the research assistance of Jessica Kingsford and Hielkje Verbrugge