Good or Essential? The Effects of Victim Characteristics and Family Significance on Sentencing Judgments and Perceptions of Harm

References

• Alicke, M. D. (1992). Culpable causation. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 63(3), 368–378.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alicke, M. D., & Davis, T. L. (1989). The role of a posteriori victim information in judgments of blame and sanction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25(4), 362–377. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(89)90028-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arbuthnot, J. (1986). Jurors’ views on due process and the death penalty: A sociomoral framework for voir dire and jury selection. Social Action & The Law, 12(1), 3–9.
   Google Scholar
• Austin, W., Walster, E., & Utne, K. (1976). Equity and the law: The effect of a harm doer's “suffering in the act” on liking and assigned punishment. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 163–190.
   Google Scholar
• Bandes, S. (1996). Empathy, narrative, and victim impact statements. The University of Chicago Law Review, 63, 361–412.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Booth v. Maryland. 482 U.S. 496 (1987).
   Google Scholar
• Boppre, B., & Miller, M. (2014). How victim and execution impact statements affect mock jurors perceptions, emotions, and verdicts. Violence & Offenders: An International Journal of Evidence-Based Research, Policy, and Practice, 9, 413–435. doi:10.1080/15564886.2013.845124
   Google Scholar
• Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law And Human Behavior, 23(1), 75–91. doi:10.1023/A:1022326807441
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blume, J. H. (2003). Ten years of Payne: Victim impact evidence in capital cases. Cornell Law Review, 88, 257–281.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butler, B. (2008). The role of death qualification in venirepersons’ susceptibility to victim impact statements. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 14(2), 133–141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butler, B. M., & Moran, G. (2002). The role of death qualification in venirepersons’ evaluations of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials. Law and Human Behavior, 26(2), 175–184. doi:10.1023/A:1014640025871
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Death Penalty Information Center. (2014). Legal issues: States that allow victim impact statements. Retrieved June 23, 2014 from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/legal-issues-states-allow-victim-impact-statements
   Google Scholar
• Deitz, S. R., Littman, M., & Bentley, B. J. (1984). Attribution of responsibility for rape: The influence of observer empathy, victim resistance, and victim attractiveness. Sex Roles, 10(3/4), 261–280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diamond, S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21(5), 561–571. doi:10.1023/A:1024831908377
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dugger, A. (1996). Victim impact evidence in capital sentencing: A history of incompatibility. American Journal of Criminal Law, 23, 375–404.
   Google Scholar
• Eisenberg, T., Garvey, S. P., & Wells, M. T. (2003). Symposium: Victims and the death penalty: Inside and outside the courtroom: Victim characteristics and victim impact evidence in South Carolina capital cases. Cornell Law Review, 88, 306–342.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erez, E. (1994). Victim participation in sentencing: And the debate goes on.…. International Review of Victimology, 3(1–2), 17–32.
   Google Scholar
• Feigenson, N., Park, J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Effect of blameworthiness and outcome severity on attributions of responsibility and damage awards in comparative negligence cases. Law and Human Behavior, 21(6), 597–617. doi:10.1023/A:1024856613829
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitzgerald, R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1984). Due process vs. crime control: Death qualification and jury attitudes. Law and Human Behavior, 8(1–2), 31–51. doi:10.1007/BF01044350
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forsterlee, L. L., Fox, G. B., Forsterlee, R. R., & Ho, R. R. (2004). The effects of a victim impact statement and gender on juror information processing in a criminal trial: Does the punishment fit the crime?. Australian Psychologist, 39(1), 57–67. doi:10.1080/00050060410001660353
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerbasi, K. C., Zuckerman, M., & Reis, H. T. (1977). Justice needs a new blindfold: A review of mock jury research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 323–345.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon, T. M., & Brodsky, S. L. (2007). The influence of victim impact statements on sentencing in capital cases. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 7(2), 45–52. doi:10.1300/J158v07n02_03
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, E. (1999). The many guises of victim impact evidence and effects on jurors’ judgments. Psychology, Crime & Law, 5(4), 331–348. doi:10.1080/10683169908401776
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, E., Johns, M., & Smith, A. (2001). The effects of defendant conduct on jury damage awards. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(2), 228–237. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.86.2.228
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, E., Koehering, H., & Quiat, M. (1998). Victim impact evidence in capital cases: Does the victim's character matter?. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(2), 145–156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, D. J. (1991). Victims’ voices in criminal court: The need for restraint. American Criminal Law Review, 28(2), 223–266.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hastie, R., Penrod, S. D., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. American Bar Foundation Research Journal, 9(3), 705–721.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408–420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hendrick, C., & Shaffer, D. R. (1975). Murder: Effects of number of killers and victim mutilation on simulated jurors’ judgments. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 6(3), 313–316.
   Google Scholar
• Henry, S., Barlow, M., Mitchell, K., Broszkiewicz, N., Myers, B., & Rogers, R. (2014). Eliciting empathy in capital jurors: The effect of victim impact statements. Poster presented at the annual conference of the American Psychology-Law Society (Div 41), New Orleans, LA, March 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Hester, R. K., & Smith, R. E. (1973). Effects of a mandatory death penalty on the decisions of simulated jurors as a function of heinousness of the crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 1(4), 319–326. doi:10.1016/0047-2352(73)90034-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hills, A. M., & Thomson, D. M. (1999). Should victim impact influence sentences? Understanding the community's justice reasoning. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 17(5), 661–671. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0798(199923)17:5<661::AID-BSL369>3.0.CO;2-N
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horowitz, I. A., Kerr, N. L., Park, E. S., & Gockel, C. (2006). Chaos in the courtroom reconsidered: Emotional bias and juror nullification. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 163–181. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9028-x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jehle, A., Miller, M. K., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2009). The influence of accounts and remorse on mock jurors’ judgments of offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 393–404.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, C., & Aronson, E. (1973). Attribution of fault to a rape victim as a function of respectability of the victim. Journal of Personality And Social Psychology, 26(3), 415–419. doi:10.1037/h0034463
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan, M. F., & Kemmerick, G. (1974). Juror judgment as information integration: Combining evidential and nonevidential information. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 30, 493–499.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M., & Garfield, D. A. (1991). Blood and guts: General and trial-specific effects of videotaped crime scenes on mock jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21(18), 1459–1472.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1979). On the requirements of proof: The timing of judicial instruction and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1877–1887.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerr, N. L., & Kurtz, S. T. (1977). Effects of a victim's suffering and respectability on mock juror judgments: Further evidence on the just world theory. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 8(1), 42–56.
   Google Scholar
• Konečni, V. J., Ebbesen, E. B., & Hock, R. R. (1996). Factors affecting simulated jurors’ decisions in capital cases. Psychology, Crime & Law, 2(4), 269–297. doi:10.1080/10683169608409784
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landy, D., & Aronson, E. (1969). The influence of the character of the criminal and his victim on the decisions of simulated jurors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5(2), 141–152. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(69)90043-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lerner, M. J. (1970). The desire for justice and reactions to victims. In J. Macaulay & L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior: Social psychological studies of some antecedents and consequences (pp. 205–229). New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levy, J. (1993). Limiting victim impact evidence and argument after Payne v. Tennessee. Stanford Law Review, 45, 1027–1060.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Logan, W. (1999). Through the past darkly: A survey of the uses and abuses of victim impact evidence in capital trials. Arizona Law Review, 41, 143–192.
   Google Scholar
• Luginbuhl, J., & Burkhead, M. (1995). Victim impact evidence in a capital trial: Encouraging votes for death. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 20(1), 1–16. doi:10.1007/BF02886115
   Google Scholar
• McGowan, M. G., & Myers, B. (2004). Who is the victim anyway? The effects of bystander victim impact statements on mock juror sentencing decisions. Violence and Victims, 19(3), 357.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Miller, M. K., Greene, E., Dietrich, H., Chamberlain, J., & Singer, J. A. (2008). How emotion affects the trial process. Judicature, 92(2), 56–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers, B., & Arbuthnot, J. (1999). The effects of victim impact evidence on the verdicts and sentencing judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 29(3–4), 95–112. doi:10.1300/J076v29n03_05
   Google Scholar
• Myers, B., & Greene, E. (2004). The prejudicial nature of victim impact statements: Implications for capital sentencing policy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10(4), 492–515.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers, B., Lynn, S., & Arbuthnot, J. (2002). Victim impact testimony and juror judgments: The effects of harm information and witness demeanor. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(11), 2393–2412.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers, B., Nunez, N., & Mitchell, K. M. (2015). The heterogeneity of victim impact statements in capital sentencing: A content analysis of capital trial transcripts. Unpublished manuscript.
   Google Scholar
• Myers, B., Roop, A., Kalnen, D., & Kehn, A. (2013). Victim impact statements and crime heinousness: A test of the saturation hypothesis. Psychology, Crime & Law, 19(2), 129–143. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2011.614244
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers, B., Weidemann, E., & Pearce, G. (2006). Psychology weighs in on the debate surrounding victim impact statements and capital sentencing: Are emotional jurors really irrational? Federal Sentencing Reporter, 19, 13–20.
   Google Scholar
• Nadler, J., & McDonnell, M. (2012). Moral character, motive and the psychology of blame. Cornell Law Review, 97(2), 1–44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nemeth, C., & Sosis, R. (1973). A simulated just study: Characteristics of the defendant and the jurors. Journal of Social Psychology, 90(2), 221–229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nietzel, M. T., Dillehay, R. C., & Himelein, M. J. (1987). Effects of voir dire variations in capital trials: A replication and extension. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 5(4), 467–477. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2370090111
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paternoster, R., & Deise, J. (2011). A heavy thumb on the scale: The effect of victim impact evidence on capital decision making. Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 49(1), 129–161. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00220.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Payne v. Tennessee. 498 U.S. 29 (1991).
   Google Scholar
• Phares, E., & Wilson, K. G. (1972). Responsibility attribution: Role of outcome severity, situational ambiguity, and internal-external control. Journal of Personality, 40(3), 392. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.ep8969946
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pitt, D. (2013). No Payne, no gain?: Revisiting victim impact statements after twenty years in effect. Chapman Law Review, 16, 475–499.
   Google Scholar
• Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scroggs, J. R. (1976). Penalties for rape as a function of victim provocativeness, damage, and resistance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 6(4), 360–368. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1976.tb02411.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shanker, N. (1999). Getting a grip on Payne and restricting the influence of victim impact statements and capital sentencing: The Timothy McVeigh case and various state approaches compared. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 26, 711–740.
   Google Scholar
• Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and non-experimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• South Carolina v. Gathers. 490 U.S. 805 (1989).
   Google Scholar
• United States ex rel. Clark v. Fike. (1976).
   Google Scholar
• Wainwright v. Witt. 469 U.S. 412 (1985).
   Google Scholar
• Walster, E. (1966). Assignment of responsibility for an accident. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 3(1), 73–79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiten, W., & Diamond, S. (1979). A critical review of the jury simulation paradigm: The case of defendant characteristics. Law and Human Behavior, 3(1–2), 71–93. doi:10.1007/BF01039149
   Google Scholar
• Wevodau, A. L., Cramer, R. J., Kehn, A., & Clark, J. W. (2014). Why the impact? Negative affective change as a mediator of the effects of victim impact statements. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 2884–2903. doi:10.1177/0886260514527170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar