Defendant’s Mens rea or Attractiveness: Which Influences Mock Juror Decisions?

Abstract

Mock juror studies have been used to help elucidate our understanding of how people come to make decisions concerning the extent of guilt of an accused. One area of debate concerns the relative merits of evidential and non-evidential information in this decision making process. In the current study, 155 (79 males, 74 females) participants read one of three versions of a fictitious transcript of a theft/handling court case, varying in the defendant’s intent only (but indirectly addressing differences of motive). A photograph of the defendant, attractive or unattractive, was attached to each transcript. ‘Mock jurors’ made decisions of extent of guilt, sentence and probability of intent. Results indicate a significant difference for the variable of intent for extent of guilt (F(2,135)=3.799, p<0.05), sentence (F(2,135)=7.438, p<0.001) and probability of intent (F(2,135)=4.993, p<0.01). No attractive-leniency effect was found for extent of guilt (F(1,135)=0.069, p>0.05), sentence (F(1,135)=0.107, p>0.05) and probability of intent (F(1,135)=0.377, p>0.05). Equally no sex of juror difference was found for extent of guilt (F(1,135)=0.001, p>0.05), sentence (F(1,135)=0.292, p>0.05) and probability of intent (F(1,135)=0.028, p>0.05). As intent increased, mock jurors were less lenient (ignoring the motive for the act). They appear to give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant who pleads not guilty, even when the only evidential information missing is admittance to theft/handling despite detail consistency across transcripts.