The Effect of Defendants Socioeconomic Status - Case Study Example

Abstract Partiality in the ‘legal decision making process’ has been ‘given considerable attention’ over the past years. Yet, researches concerning ‘biases by juries and juror members’ have been incongruous and inadequate. (Espinoza, 2005) It is questionable whether jurors decide based on the evidences and witnesses presented or due to other influential factors such as the socioeconomic status (SES) of the defendant. This study was carried out to identify whether the SES (low SES or high SES) of the defendant has a significant effect on the decisions made by the jury. Sixty different data were entered and analyzed in the SPSS; the first thirty figures labeled “Low SES Defendant” (Group 1) and the others marked “High SES Defendant” (Group 2). Group data was analyzed using T – test. Results did not show any significant difference (p> 0.05) deviated from the null hypothesis of equal chance at the level of significant 0.05. There is no significant difference between ratings of guilt, responsibility and length of sentences proposed by participants in the two groups. General Aim This report aims to look at the effect of defendant’s socioeconomic status (SES) in decisions made by mock jurors. Theory It is suggested that the jury’s decision is affected by defendant’s socio economic status. Hypothesis 1. More people see the low SES defendant guilty than the defendant with high SES. 2. The defendant with low SES is more likely to be viewed as responsible. 3. The defendant with low SES is going to have the longer jail sentence. Introduction Many persons look to the court or judicial system for justice. In lands where common law legal system prevails, juries are part of the judicial process. Possibly, it is the ‘single most defining feature’ (Decaire, n.d.) of this kind of legal system. A jury, composed of average citizens, hears the evidence and determines guilt or innocence. Then, depending on the type of case, the judge may sentence the guilty parties. Over the last decades, however, exploratory evidence implies that the jury system has been infiltrated by prejudice. Decaire (n.d.) noted the following: In a perfect, just world, the jury system would provide a fair and elaborate procedure through which a defendant's potential guilt in the violation of criminal laws would be determined in an unbiased manner. However, empirical evidence suggests that this "fair and unbiased" procedure is failing. Baldwin and McConville (1979) found that as many as 5 percent of jury trials in England came up with disturbingly questionable convictions. And this conclusion is not limited to investigators, Kalven and Zeisal (1966) noted that judges and jurors disagreed regarding the verdicts in as many as 20 percent of cases. An ever growing body of evidence suggests that juries may be, both consciously and unconsciously, using a number of extra-evidential factors in order to come to their decisions. Several psychological studies gave evidence that “extra-evidential factors” such as race or ethnicity, halo and devil effect and socioeconomic status of the defendant can influence jury’s decision processes. Race or Ethnicity The connection between race and jury decision making has raved great controversy in recent years (Sommers, 2007). Researches, however, do not have an exclusively consistent result on how defendant’s race and jury’s decisions are linked. Surprisingly, though, ‘several studies in the past two decades reveal evidence of White juror bias against Black defendants’ (Sommers & Ellsworth, 2003). For instance, statistical review of fourteen studies by Sweeney and Haney (1992 as quoted in Sommers & Ellsworth, 2003) showed that White mock jurors advocated Black defendants with longer sentences than White defendants. Halo and Devil Effect Affect heuristic, ‘the subjective impressions of goodness/badness act as a heuristic - a source of fast, perceptual judgments’ (Yudkowsky, 2007), is manifested by the “halo” and “devil” effect (Thorndike, 1920) in social psychology. Robert Cialdini, in Influence: Science and Practice, recapitulates: Research has shown that we automatically assign to good-looking individuals such favorable traits as talent, kindness, honesty, and intelligence.  Furthermore, we make these judgments without being aware that physical attractiveness plays a role in the process.  For example, a study of the 1974 Canadian federal elections found that attractive candidates received more than two and a half times as many votes as unattractive candidates.  Despite such evidence of favoritism toward handsome politicians, follow-up research demonstrated that voters did not realize their bias. Equally unsettling research indicates that our judicial process is similarly susceptible to the influences of body dimensions and bone structure.  It now appears that good-looking people are likely to receive highly favorable treatment in the legal system.  For example, in a Pennsylvania study, researchers rated the physical attractiveness of 74 separate male defendants at the start of their criminal trials.  When, much later, the researchers checked court records for the results of these cases, they found that the handsome men had received significantly lighter sentences.  In fact, attractive defendants were twice as likely to avoid jail as unattractive defendants.  In another study - this one on the damages awarded in a staged negligence trial - a defendant who was better looking than his victim was assessed an average amount of $5,623; but when the victim was the more attractive of the two, the average compensation was $10,051.  What's more, both male and female jurors exhibited the attractiveness-based favoritism. (As quoted in Yudkowsky, 2007) If the “halo” effect is the tendency to judge somebody as being totally good, generating an affirmative impression of someone, the “devil” effect is the reverse. It creates an overall negative perception of someone. This physiological effect, however, can distort a good judgment especially in making legal decisions. Socioeconomic Status (SES) ‘A salient characteristic that has been revealed to influence guilt responsibility notions is socioeconomic status (SES)’ (Espinoza, 2005). Socioeconomic status or SES is the measure of a person’s economic and social position which is usually based on income, education and occupation. Although several studies have been conducted to include the effect of defendant SES on decisions made by jury, this report specifically explore the effect of defendant having low SES or high SES on guilt, responsibility and length of sentence imposed by the jury. Method Statistical Analysis SPSS 17.0 statistical package was used and data was entered in the SPSS Statistic Data Editor. There were 60 participants in all, 30 participants in each group, Group 1 (Low SES defendant) and Group 2 (High SES defendant). Table 1 presents the data that were used. Since the SPSS data editor could not process strings of characters, numerical values were assigned for each variable. The following list shows the designated values for each variable utilized in this report. Group 1 - ‘Low SES defendant’ 2 - ‘High SES defendant’ Guilt 1 - ‘Not guilty’ 2 - ‘Guilty’ 3 – ‘Not sure’ Responsibility 1 – 10 (Rating of how responsible the participant thought the defendant was for the crime) Sentence The length of sentence given to the defendant (in years) Table 1 – Data View Content of the SPSS Data Editor Participant’s T-test (two tailed, independent sample) was performed (using SPSS 17.0) to compare the mean probability of the study group with the null hypothesis (i.e. probability of the participants holding the Low SES defendant responsible is 0.5). Results In this study, 60 individuals participated and each subject expressed their judgment to whether the defendant is guilty and responsible or not given his socioeconomic status (SES). They also proposed the corresponding length of sentence for the defendant. Therefore to analyze the group data N = 30 was considered and to analyze individual data N = 60 was considered. For statistical calculations probability of null hypothesis was taken as 0.05. Table 2 shows the number of participants who thought the defendant was guilty and the number who thought the defendant was innocent and the number who were undecided. Table 2 – Guilt Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid not guilty 4 6.7 6.7 6.7 guilty 23 38.3 38.3 45.0 not sure 33 55.0 55.0 100.0 Total 60 100.0 100.0 In order to determine whether more people in the low SES defendant group thought that the defendant was guilty than those in the high SES group cross-tabulation was performed. Table 3 displays the cross-tabulation data. Table 3 - Group * Guilt Cross-tabulation Guilt Total not guilty guilty not sure Group Low SES defendant Count 3 12 15 30 % within Group 10.0% 40.0% 50.0% 100.0% High SES defendant Count 1 11 18 30 % within Group 3.3% 36.7% 60.0% 100.0% Total Count 4 23 33 60 % within Group 6.7% 38.3% 55.0% 100.0% To find out if there was any significant difference between the two groups in terms of how responsible they thought the defendant was for the crime and how long a sentence they thought he should receive, an Independent T – test was done. Table 4 and 5 shows the results of the T – tests. Table 4 – Independent T – test for Group * Responsibility Group Statistics Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Responsibility Low SES defendant 30 6.07 1.639 .299 High SES defendant 30 6.13 1.737 .317 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference Lower Upper Responsibility Equal variances assumed 1.130 .292 -.153 58 .879 -.067 .436 -.939 .806 Equal variances not assumed -.153 57.805 .879 -.067 .436 -.939 .806 Table 5 – Independent T – test for Group * Length of Sentence Proposed Group Statistics Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Sentence Low SES defendant 30 8.53 3.980 .727 High SES defendant 30 8.57 4.240 .774 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference Lower Upper Sentence Equal variances assumed .053 .819 -.031 58 .975 -.033 1.062 -2.159 2.092 Equal variances not assumed -.031 57.770 .975 -.033 1.062 -2.159 2.092 Discussion This study was conducted to find out any significant difference on the effect of defendant’s socioeconomic status (SES) in decisions made by mock jurors. It was set to find out if more people see the low SES defendant guilty than the defendant with high SES; or whether the defendant with low SES is more likely to be viewed as responsible; and whether the defendant with low SES is going to have the longer jail sentence. Group data was analyzed using T - Test and individual data was analyzed using descriptive statistics frequencies test and cross-tabulation (both test were performed on the SPSS 17.0). T - Test was performed to determine any significant difference between the two groups (Group 1 – ‘Low SES defendant’ and Group 2 – ‘High SES defendant’) in terms of how responsible the defendant was for the crime and how long a sentence the participants thought he should receive. Probability greater than 0.05 shows there is a chance of more than 5% for the mean of the study group to fall in to null hypothesis. Statistically this is insignificant and this can be interpreted that the participants’ or jury’s decision was not affected by the defendant’s socioeconomic status (SES). Probability of T test (p>0.05) explains that both groups’ decisions were not affected by the defendant’s SES. Therefore it can be assumed as these jurors’ decisions were not influenced by the other “extra-evidential factors” such as SES. However, the cross-tabulation data analyzed showed that ‘Low SES defendant’ group was more likely to think that the defendant was guilty. As mentioned by Espinoza (2005) ‘defendants’ SES can play a pivotal role in guilt decisions and can influence perceptions of responsibility’. To avoid any biasness and to improve this study, research can be done incorporating further “extra-evidential factors” such as race or ethnicity, halo and devil effect and others which can ascertain a more established result. Further to above this sample does not represents the general public. The age, Psychological aspects, race and background of the participants may differ from the general population. Therefore these findings cannot be generalized. In conclusion, there is no significant difference on the decisions made by the jurors despite different socioeconomic status of the defendant. Further improvements should be done and additional components should be added for a more reliable outcome. References Decaire, Michael W. (n.d.). The faltering common law jury system: A psychological perspective. http://www.uplink.com.au/lawlibrary/Documents/Docs/Doc24.html. Accessed on March 12, 2009. Espinoza, Russ K. E. (1996). The effect of defendant race and SES, and defense attorney race on juror decision making: An aversive racism explanation for prejudice against Mexican American. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?did=921038801&Fmt=2&VType=PQD&VInst=PROD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1236920991&clientId=79356. Accessed on March 12, 2009. Sommers, Samuel R. (2007). Race and the decision making of juries. Legal and Criminal Psychology, 12, 171 – 187. The British Psychological Society. http://ase.tufts.edu/psychology/sommerslab/172.pdf. Accessed on March 12, 2009. Sommers, Samuel R., Ellsworth, Phoebe C. (2003). How much do we really know about race and juries? A review of social science theory and research. http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/78-3/sommers_ellsworth.pdf. Accessed on March 12, 2009. Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error on psychological rating. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. IV, 25 – 29. Yudkowsky, Eliezer. (2007). The halo effect. http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/11/halo-effect.html. Accessed on March 14, 2009. Yudkowsky, Eliezer. (2007). The after heuristic. http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/11/affect-heuristi.html. Accessed on March 14, 2009. Read More