Jury decision-making biases and methods to counter them

Tarika Daftary Kapur, Rafaele Dumas, Steven D. Penrod

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

27 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose. The objective of this review was to give a broad overview of various biases associated with jury decision making. Specifically we review research on the impact of pretrial publicity, jury instructions, inadmissible evidence, and scientific evidence. This article elucidates various challenges jurors may face across systems around the world and remedies to counter these challenges. Results. After 50 years of scientific research on juries and juror decision making, there are still many gaps in understanding how factors such as pretrial publicity, inadmissible evidence, scientific evidence, and jury instructions influence juries. At the same time the field has developed a level of appreciation for these problems and is making strives toward understanding them. Conclusion. Based on this review some conclusions can be drawn regarding the areas of decision making reviewed. Jury instructions: Research shows that jurors have difficulties in understanding pattern instructions, at the same time we have developed some insights into ways instructions can be rewritten to increase comprehensibility. Inadmissible evidence: We are aware of the cognitive effort involved in attempting to disregard evidence but are at this point unclear on how to eliminate the associated problems. Scientific evidence: Research has illuminated the difficulties jurors have with comprehending scientific evidence. Better education of jurors and judges can help to address this issue. Pretrial publicity: The threats posed by pretrial publicity to the defendant's right to a fair trial are clear. At the same time (save change of venue) there is a need to develop cost-effective remedies to help overcome media-induced biases.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)133-154
Number of pages22
JournalLegal and Criminological Psychology
Volume15
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Feb 2010

Fingerprint

Decision Making
Research
Education
Costs and Cost Analysis

Cite this

Daftary Kapur, Tarika ; Dumas, Rafaele ; Penrod, Steven D. / Jury decision-making biases and methods to counter them. In: Legal and Criminological Psychology. 2010 ; Vol. 15, No. 1. pp. 133-154.
@article{cd7d63340812448b878e07c15fc17964,
title = "Jury decision-making biases and methods to counter them",
abstract = "Purpose. The objective of this review was to give a broad overview of various biases associated with jury decision making. Specifically we review research on the impact of pretrial publicity, jury instructions, inadmissible evidence, and scientific evidence. This article elucidates various challenges jurors may face across systems around the world and remedies to counter these challenges. Results. After 50 years of scientific research on juries and juror decision making, there are still many gaps in understanding how factors such as pretrial publicity, inadmissible evidence, scientific evidence, and jury instructions influence juries. At the same time the field has developed a level of appreciation for these problems and is making strives toward understanding them. Conclusion. Based on this review some conclusions can be drawn regarding the areas of decision making reviewed. Jury instructions: Research shows that jurors have difficulties in understanding pattern instructions, at the same time we have developed some insights into ways instructions can be rewritten to increase comprehensibility. Inadmissible evidence: We are aware of the cognitive effort involved in attempting to disregard evidence but are at this point unclear on how to eliminate the associated problems. Scientific evidence: Research has illuminated the difficulties jurors have with comprehending scientific evidence. Better education of jurors and judges can help to address this issue. Pretrial publicity: The threats posed by pretrial publicity to the defendant's right to a fair trial are clear. At the same time (save change of venue) there is a need to develop cost-effective remedies to help overcome media-induced biases.",
author = "{Daftary Kapur}, Tarika and Rafaele Dumas and Penrod, {Steven D.}",
year = "2010",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1348/135532509X465624",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
pages = "133--154",
journal = "Legal and Criminological Psychology",
issn = "1355-3259",
number = "1",

}

Jury decision-making biases and methods to counter them. / Daftary Kapur, Tarika; Dumas, Rafaele; Penrod, Steven D.

In: Legal and Criminological Psychology, Vol. 15, No. 1, 01.02.2010, p. 133-154.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Jury decision-making biases and methods to counter them

AU - Daftary Kapur, Tarika

AU - Dumas, Rafaele

AU - Penrod, Steven D.

PY - 2010/2/1

Y1 - 2010/2/1

N2 - Purpose. The objective of this review was to give a broad overview of various biases associated with jury decision making. Specifically we review research on the impact of pretrial publicity, jury instructions, inadmissible evidence, and scientific evidence. This article elucidates various challenges jurors may face across systems around the world and remedies to counter these challenges. Results. After 50 years of scientific research on juries and juror decision making, there are still many gaps in understanding how factors such as pretrial publicity, inadmissible evidence, scientific evidence, and jury instructions influence juries. At the same time the field has developed a level of appreciation for these problems and is making strives toward understanding them. Conclusion. Based on this review some conclusions can be drawn regarding the areas of decision making reviewed. Jury instructions: Research shows that jurors have difficulties in understanding pattern instructions, at the same time we have developed some insights into ways instructions can be rewritten to increase comprehensibility. Inadmissible evidence: We are aware of the cognitive effort involved in attempting to disregard evidence but are at this point unclear on how to eliminate the associated problems. Scientific evidence: Research has illuminated the difficulties jurors have with comprehending scientific evidence. Better education of jurors and judges can help to address this issue. Pretrial publicity: The threats posed by pretrial publicity to the defendant's right to a fair trial are clear. At the same time (save change of venue) there is a need to develop cost-effective remedies to help overcome media-induced biases.

AB - Purpose. The objective of this review was to give a broad overview of various biases associated with jury decision making. Specifically we review research on the impact of pretrial publicity, jury instructions, inadmissible evidence, and scientific evidence. This article elucidates various challenges jurors may face across systems around the world and remedies to counter these challenges. Results. After 50 years of scientific research on juries and juror decision making, there are still many gaps in understanding how factors such as pretrial publicity, inadmissible evidence, scientific evidence, and jury instructions influence juries. At the same time the field has developed a level of appreciation for these problems and is making strives toward understanding them. Conclusion. Based on this review some conclusions can be drawn regarding the areas of decision making reviewed. Jury instructions: Research shows that jurors have difficulties in understanding pattern instructions, at the same time we have developed some insights into ways instructions can be rewritten to increase comprehensibility. Inadmissible evidence: We are aware of the cognitive effort involved in attempting to disregard evidence but are at this point unclear on how to eliminate the associated problems. Scientific evidence: Research has illuminated the difficulties jurors have with comprehending scientific evidence. Better education of jurors and judges can help to address this issue. Pretrial publicity: The threats posed by pretrial publicity to the defendant's right to a fair trial are clear. At the same time (save change of venue) there is a need to develop cost-effective remedies to help overcome media-induced biases.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=74749104860&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1348/135532509X465624

DO - 10.1348/135532509X465624

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:74749104860

VL - 15

SP - 133

EP - 154

JO - Legal and Criminological Psychology

JF - Legal and Criminological Psychology

SN - 1355-3259

IS - 1

ER -