Conceptualizing Defendants as Minorities Leads Mock Jurors to Make Biased Evaluations in Retracted Confession Cases
Criminal suspects who confess during interrogations sometimes retract their confessions and go to trial. Jurors must then evaluate the voluntariness and authenticity of the confession and determine guilt. Previous research indicates that focusing the camera on the detective and defendant equally (ra...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Psychology, public policy, and law public policy, and law, 2013-02, Vol.19 (1), p.56-69 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Criminal suspects who confess during interrogations sometimes retract their confessions and go to trial. Jurors must then evaluate the voluntariness and authenticity of the confession and determine guilt. Previous research indicates that focusing the camera on the detective and defendant equally (rather than on the defendant alone) while recording the interrogation protects defendants from a salience bias produced by the camera perspective. We demonstrated that, even with an equal-focus video, a salience bias can occur if jurors conceptualize a defendant as a member of a minority group and therefore see the defendant as distinctive. In two experiments, mock jurors viewed an equal-focus confession video embedded within a murder trial. The defendant's physical appearance remained constant; however, when jurors believed he was a minority rather than a majority group member, they directed more visual attention toward him, rated his confession as more voluntary, authentic, and incriminating, and considered him more likely guilty. Contrary to our prediction, the defendant's minority status did not interact with his apparent motive (Experiment 1). However, the detective's use of a false evidence ploy during interrogation led jurors to evaluate the defendant less negatively on most measures (Experiment 2), although verdicts were unaffected. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1076-8971 1939-1528 |
DOI: | 10.1037/a0029308 |