Matching Items (2)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

133209-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
This research study looked at frequency and proportion of suggestive questions (negative term, statement, and tag), the age of the child, and the attorney conducting the examination (prosecution versus defense). The population of this study was obtained from Maricopa County Attorney's Office court transcripts from 2005-2015 and the sample included

This research study looked at frequency and proportion of suggestive questions (negative term, statement, and tag), the age of the child, and the attorney conducting the examination (prosecution versus defense). The population of this study was obtained from Maricopa County Attorney's Office court transcripts from 2005-2015 and the sample included 64 minors between the ages of 5-12 years old. The present study showed that regarding frequency, there was no significant difference between the number of suggestive questions asked by the prosecution and defense, however, when looked at the proportion of these questions, prosecution asked significantly fewer suggestive questions compared to the defense. Older children (9-12 year olds) receive more, both in terms of frequency and proportion, suggestive questions than younger children (5-8 year olds). Lastly, children typically gave elaborate responses to suggestive questions from the defense more than from the prosecution. This study shows that attorneys are using problematic methods when questioning children between the ages of 5-12 years old and these suggestive methods may affect the child's ability to provide credible testimony.
ContributorsMcDonald, Ashley (Author) / Stolzenberg, Stacia (Thesis director) / Fradella, Hank (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Criminology and Criminal Justice (Contributor)
Created2018-12
134869-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
By providing vignettes with manipulated scientific evidence, this research examined if including more or less scientific detail affected decision-making in regards to the death penalty. Participants were randomly assigned one of the two manipulations (less science and more science) after reading a short scenario introducing the mock capital trial and

By providing vignettes with manipulated scientific evidence, this research examined if including more or less scientific detail affected decision-making in regards to the death penalty. Participants were randomly assigned one of the two manipulations (less science and more science) after reading a short scenario introducing the mock capital trial and their role as jury members. Survey respondents were told that a jury had previously found the defendant guilty and they would now deliberate the appropriate punishment. Before being exposed to the manipulation, respondents answered questions pertaining to their prior belief in the death penalty, as well as their level of support of procedural justice and science. These questions provided a baseline to compare to their sentencing decision. Participants were then asked what sentence they would impose \u2014 life in prison or death \u2014 and how the fMRI evidence presented by an expert witness for the defense affected their decision. Both quantitative and qualitative measures were used to identify how the level of scientific detail affected their decision. Our intended predictor variable (level of scientific detail) did not affect juror decision-making. In fact, the qualitative results revealed a variety of interpretations of the scientific evidence used both in favor of death and in favor of life. When looking at what did predict juror decision-making, gender, prior belief in the death penalty, and political ideology all were significant predictors. As in previous literature, the fMRI evidence in our study had mixed results with regards to implementation of the death penalty. This held true in both of our manipulations, showing that despite the level of detail in evidence intended for mitigation, jurors with preconceived notions may still disregard the evidence, and some jurors may even view it is aggravating and thus increase the likelihood of a death sentence for a defendant with such brain abnormalities.
ContributorsBerry, Megan Cheyenne (Author) / Fradella, Hank (Thesis director) / Pardini, Dustin (Committee member) / Department of Psychology (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12