Factors affecting simulated jurors' decisions in capital cases

Previous psycho-legal research has claimed that the process of selecting death-qualified jurors for capital cases creates conviction-prone juries. The studies on which these claims are based have employed simulation methodologies to examine the relationship between subjects' death-penalty attitudes and verdict decisions, as well as the effect of the death-qualifying voir dire itself. Despite admitted weaknesses of simulations in general, this method was employed in the present research so that conceptual comparisons to past findings could be drawn. Two experiments were designed to examine the issue of death-qualification and biased juries in a context of other potentially highly influential factors, namely, the strength of evidence and the degree of heinousness. Our results failed to find any of the relationships between death-penalty attitudes and verdict decisions that would be predicted from past research. Instead, the subjects' decisions were influenced, virtually exclusively, by the strength of the evidence presented in the case, as is legally prescribed. In the light of these findings, the discussion focused on the questions of reliability and external validity of simulation research, the potential problems caused by method-specific factors in determining the outcome of such methodology, the attitude-behavior link, and the danger of premature and un-warranted application to the legal system of findings from simulations.