Matching Items (15)
Filtering by
- Creators: Department of Psychology
- Creators: School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies
- Member of: Theses and Dissertations
Description
This study investigates the presence of a dual identity defendant, and how sharing an in-group can create a judgment bias. A sample of 256 participants was used to test whether there was a relationship between judgment punitiveness, perceptions of shared identity, hypocrisy and the social identities (religion and sexual orientation) of the participants and a defendant charges with a sexual offence. Results suggest that Christian participants selected more punitive outcomes for the defendant compared to non-Christian participants. Further, participants were more punitive when the defendant was gay compared to when the defendant was heterosexual. Also, when the defendant was straight there was a stronger feeling of similarity between the participants and defendant compared to when the defendant was gay, and non-Christian participants had a stronger feeling of closeness to the defendant compared to Christian participants. There was a significant interaction found, suggesting that when the defendant was Christian and gay he was seen as more hypocritical compared to when he was Christian and straight; there was no interaction when the defendant was not Christian. These findings should aid in future research and a better understanding of how dual identity defendants are perceived in the courtroom.
ContributorsAltholz, Rachel Leah (Author) / Salerno, Jessica (Thesis advisor) / Hall, Deborah (Committee member) / Schweitzer, Nick (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2014
Description
From its founding, the United States has always claimed to be a nation of immigrants, yet in the past century the issue of immigration has become an even more contentious political issue surrounded by heated rhetoric filled with passion, but devoid of information. This thesis hopes to interrupt this rhetoric with a thorough analysis of immigration politics in Arizona through a legal lens, a theoretical lens and an empirical lens. While this thesis by no means looks at all facets of immigration politics, it informs in a manner that adds depth by providing information on the history behind, and legal arguments surrounding, the most contentious piece of immigration legislation in the United States at the moment. It then provides a theoretical analysis of how immigration legislation has created carceral networks and a panoptic gaze in Arizona specifically. It ends with a recommendation for further empirical research to partner with both the legal and theoretical frameworks. This thesis concludes that, fortified with over a century of case law, the plenary power doctrine is unwavering, and it makes federal immigration legislation an overly powerful tool in our political system from which the courts can offer little if any protection. Congress walks a fine line between preempting immigration regulation and devolving immigration regulation. SB 1070 and the 287(g) program are two contested areas of immigration regulation, which both exhibit and alter the power relationships of immigration politics in Arizona. Additionally, the application of the theories of Michel Foucault illuminates the power relationships at play in Arizona - from the power relationships among nation states in the broader political arena of geopolitics and colonialism to the face-to-face power relationship between a police officer and a stopped/detained/arrested person in a Foucauldian carceral network. This thesis ends with a call for empirical research that would yield an opportunity to analyze these relationships. This thesis discusses the importance of empirical study. It situates the study within the genre of surveillance studies and its theorists. It analyzes similar studies, and identifies the variables the most illuminating for this analysis. This thesis is written in the hope that a researcher will pick up where this thesis has left off.
ContributorsBycura, Marquette (Author) / Schweitzer, Nick (Thesis advisor) / Vargas, Perla (Committee member) / Simmons, William (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2011
Description
Previous studies exploring variability in sentencing decisions have consistently found gender differences, such that women receive lighter sentences than men. In the proposed study, I present a new framework for understanding gender differences in sentencing preferences, including circumstances under which no gender differences should emerge. The Affordance Management Approach suggests that our minds are attuned to both group- and individual-level threats and opportunities that others afford us. I conceptualize the sentencing difference between men and women as driven by perceived affordances that assist or hinder an individual in achieving certain fundamental goals. When faced with sanctioning an offender in our community, the offender's sex, the victim's age, and environmental variables such as the ratio of men to women may influence our decision-making, because these factors have affordance implications. Thus, I hypothesized that individuals will express differences in the sentencing of offenders who commit assault, and that these differences vary by offender sex, victim age, and sex-ratio. The results indicate that, as predicted, female offenders received lighter sentencing than men when the offender committed an assault against a same-sex adult, but received equally punitive sentences as men when the assault was committed against a child. In general, results do not support a consistent effect of sex ratio as a factor when making sentencing decisions. Although results do not fully support the current study's specific hypotheses, there remains much to be gained from applying an affordance management perspective to understanding variability in sentencing between the sexes.
ContributorsUzzanti, Charlene Ann (Author) / Neuberg, Steven (Thesis director) / Knight, George (Committee member) / Salerno, Jessica (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Criminology and Criminal Justice (Contributor) / Department of Psychology (Contributor)
Created2015-05
Description
Scientists, lawyers, and bioethicists have pondered the impact of scientifically deterministic evidence on a judge or jury when deciding the sentence of a criminal. Though the impact may be one that relieves the amount of personal guilt on the part of the criminal, this evidence may also be the very reason that a judge or jury punishes more strongly, suggesting that this type of evidence may be a double-edged sword. 118 participants were shown three films of fictional sentencing hearings. All three films introduced scientifically deterministic evidence, and participants were asked to recommend a prison sentence. Each hearing portrayed a different criminal with different neurological conditions, a different crime, and a different extent of argumentation during closing arguments about the scientifically deterministic evidence. Though the argumentation from the prosecution and the defense did not affect sentencing, the interaction of type of crime and neurological condition did.
ContributorsMeschkow, Alisha Sadie (Author) / Schweitzer, Nicholas (Thesis director) / Robert, Jason (Committee member) / Patten, K. Jakob (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Department of Psychology (Contributor)
Created2014-05
Description
The demographics of Arizona are changing as Hispanics children are passing through their youth and into adulthood. Yet, even with this changing population Arizona has demonstrated an unwillingness to provide adequate educational opportunities for Hispanic school children. The state has perpetuated fear throughout the Hispanic community in an attempt to marginalize and stigmatize the race. Such attempts have extended to youth in schools creating an environment of fear. This fear limits the academic potential of young Hispanics who are wary of government officials and institutions. Arizona has also failed to provide appropriate funding for programs used predominantly by Hispanic students leaving them unprepared for a workplace that desperately needs them. Finally, Arizona has refused to allow course content with a record of increasing academic achievement and graduation rates amongst Hispanics to be taught in schools. Taken as a whole Arizona's efforts are creating a cadre of unskilled and unprepared laborers who will be desperately needed to take jobs in the Arizona economy in the coming years. This blatant disregard for the educational needs of a large segment of the population will have a devastating impact on Arizona's future.
ContributorsSmith, Jason Ryan (Author) / Davis, T. J. (Thesis director) / Ovando, Carlos (Committee member) / Tsosie, Rebecca (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies (Contributor)
Created2013-12
Description
Contributing to the small but growing body of research on linguistic discrimination in legal settings, this thesis conducts a sociolinguistic investigation of the impact of an individual's accent on juror perceptions of defendant favorability and innocence. The study used an online questionnaire in which sixty mock jurors were each asked to evaluate the audio testimony of a defendant representing one of three English ethnolects: African American, British South African, or Caucasian American. In addition to rating the defendant's persuasiveness, honesty, credibility, trustworthiness, and guilt, participants were also asked to determine an appropriate punishment (if any) for the defendant. Results indicate a preference of participants to issue an unsure or caveat opinion for the African American speaker but not to the British South African or Caucasian American speaker. The implications of these findings, as well as the correlations between each variable are discussed. The paper concludes with a recommendation for legal training and a revision of courtroom practices.
ContributorsMaerowitz, Max Robert (Author) / Prior, Matthew (Thesis director) / Adams, Karen (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies (Contributor) / Department of English (Contributor)
Created2014-05
Description
The aim of this thesis is to explore the relationship between architecture and history in Virginia from 1607 to the eve of the American Revolution to create a complete historical narrative. The interdependency of history and architecture creates culturally important pieces and projects the colonist's need to connect to the past as well as their innovations in their own cultural exploration. The thesis examines the living conditions of the colonists that formed Jamestown, and describes the architectural achievements and the historical events that were taking place at the time. After Jamestown, the paper moves on to the innovations of early Virginian architecture from Colonial architecture to Georgian architecture found in Williamsburg. Conclusively, the thesis presents a historical narrative on how architecture displays a collection of ideals from the Virginian colonists at the time. The external display of architecture parallels the events as well as the economic conditions of Virginia, creating a social dialogue between the gentry and the common class in the colony of Virginia.
ContributorsChang, Hosu (Author) / Gray, Susan (Thesis director) / O'Donnell, Catherine (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor)
Created2015-05
Description
My thesis explores the role that implicit gender bias plays in the courtroom. From personal experience, I have seen the way that gender has been a factor in the courtroom as a result of both competing in and coaching Mock Trial. As a competitor, my gender was always a factor in that I was told that I couldn't do something because I am female. As a coach, I found myself reinforcing these ideas of gender because that was what I was taught, even though I didn't agree with them. I decided to explore the role of gender in the courtroom using Mock Trial as a framework to study how implicit gender biases is present. As a result of my research, I argue that implicit gender bias is present in the courtroom, and that these biases create barriers for female success. I have conducted research based on a variety of sources, beginning with looking at the role women have historically played in the courtroom to current issues facing women attorneys today. I have researched the role of implicit gender bias and studied how these biases impact women and hinder their success. I conducted research through distribution of the coach survey and analyzed the responses. From these finding I have concluded that implicit gender bias is a factor in the courtroom and that these biases tend to negatively affect women competitors. I conclude that that more research and studies need to be done to make individuals aware of how implicit gender bias functions in the courtroom and how coaches in Mock Trial may be contributing to the reinforcement of these biases.
ContributorsDuarte Luna, Ariana Maria (Author) / Stoff, Laurie (Thesis director) / Amazeen, Nia (Committee member) / Department of Psychology (Contributor) / W. P. Carey School of Business (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2017-05
Description
In recent years, the use of biologically based (neurological, neuropsychological, genetic) evidence in criminal trials as support for claims of mental impairments among offenders has increased in popularity. However, research on how exposure to those arguments affects jury decision-making remains unclear. Specifically, arguments rooted in biology sometimes mitigate and sometimes aggravate judgments of criminal responsibility for mentally ill offenders, and this discrepancy seems to stem from the specific conditions by which that disorder was acquired. The following study’s aim was to uncover the precise mechanism(s) behind this elusive effect. Utilizing a 2x2 between subjects experimental design, participants were presented with a hypothetical crime summary involving an offender with either an onset controllable or uncontrollable mental disorder. Ratings of criminal responsibility and other variables hypothesized to function as mediators were obtained after presentation of a prime supporting either a biologically deterministic or free will argument for human behavior in general. Results indicated that when the defendant’s disorder was the result of the his own actions (onset controllable), a biological prime decreased judgments of criminal responsibility; however, when the disorder was caused by factors out of his control (onset uncontrollable), the prime increased judgments of criminal responsibility. An examination of several possible mechanisms finds the effect mediated by the perception of control the defendant could have had over his own actions at the time of the crime. These results suggest that perceptions of behavioral control are an important contributor to jurors’ formation of criminal responsibility judgments when an offender possesses a mental illness; and arguments advocating a biological basis for human behavior reliably affect blame attribution, suggesting that a societal shift in the perception of free will as a result of increased exposure to biology in general may alter the framework of criminal responsibility judgments.
ContributorsHunter, Shelby (Author) / Schweitzer, Nick (Thesis advisor) / Neal, Tess (Committee member) / Salerno, Jessica (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2017
Description
Bad Samaritans are bystanders who omit from preventing some foreseeable harm when doing so could have been accomplished with little risk. Although failing to intervene to prevent a harm often renders Bad Samaritans morally culpable, under current common law in the United States they could not be held criminally liable for any harm that resulted to the victims of that harm. In this paper I argue for the criminalization of individuals who fall under this label; I argue for the adoption of Bad Samaritan laws. To accomplish this, I first argue for the conclusion that omissions can causally contribute to harm. From here I am able to reach three further conclusions relative to Bad Samaritan legislation. These three conclusions are that Bad Samaritan laws are justified, that the punishment for the violation of a Bad Samaritan law should be proportional to the degree culpability for the harm caused, and that if "commission by omission" statutes are justified, then so too are Bad Samaritan laws.
ContributorsCallahan, Ty William (Author) / Sigler, Mary (Thesis director) / Murphy, Jeffrie (Committee member) / Botham, Thad (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Chemical Engineering Program (Contributor) / Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Contributor) / School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies (Contributor)
Created2013-05