Social psychology can be used in the criminal justice system such as jury decision making (The Pennsylvania State University, 2015). On the basis of evidence submitted to them, jurors are sworn to give a verdict in a legal case. They “decide the guilt or innocence of individuals accused of crimes and in some jurisdictions they also decide the punishment in criminal cases” (The Pennsylvania State University, 2015). However, jurors return guilty verdicts in certain cases even when it may not be judicious to do so such as in the case of sexual abuse (Wiener, Arnott, Winter, & Redmond, 2006). This type of prejudice, “that can biases jurors’ decision making”, is referred to as generic prejudice (Lieberman & Krauss, 2009). The cognitive resource theory, which states that stress impacts the ability to make decisions, may be an explanation for this specific type of bias.
Generic prejudice “involves the transfer of pre-existing prejudicial attitudes, beliefs, or stereotypes about categories of persons, entities, or events to the trial setting in a legally inappropriate manner” (Vidmar, 2003, p. 1152). According to Vidmar, “generic prejudice is different from other types of judicial bias as the nature of the crime or the type of parties involved cause the juror to classify the case as having certain characteristics, thereby invoking stereotyped prejudices above any defendant accused of the crime” (Vidmar, 1997, p. 6). Therefore, by merely listening to a defendant at a trial being accused of a specific crime, “a set of biases are triggered in the mind of jurors due to the nature of that crime regardless of the case facts” (Lieberman & Krauss, 2009). Some case examples include Casey Anthony and Orenthal James “O. J.” Simpson. Both defendants were viewed as guilty before knowing all of the facts simply because of the nature of the crimes. Unfortunately however, generic prejudice is not easily identifiable. Furthermore, it may have a substantial effect on the ability for the judicial system to enter in a list of impartial jurors (Vidmar, 1997).
In an example to illustrate generic prejudice, “849 prospective jurors were asked under oath whether they could hear the evidence, follow the judges instructions on the law, and decide the case with a fair and impartial mind,” regarding 25 criminal trials involving charges of sexual abuse, and approximately 36% of the jurors specified they could not be impartial (Vidmar, 1997). This demonstrates that the issue was not objection or revulsion of sex abuse but simply the attitudes and beliefs that stand on the speculation of innocence when a suspect is accused of sexual abuse. According to one juror, “I guess in certain situations I consider people are guilty until proven innocent; I know it’s not the way it is suppose(sic) to be, but that’s the way it is sometimes” (Vidmar, 1997). As mentioned above, many people are culpable of this. The nature of the crime absolutely influences a person’s thought process and thus their decision-making.
Cognitive resource theory may be a process underlying the influence of generic prejudice (The Pennsylvania State University, 2015). According to Wiener et. al., under cognitive resource theory, “people are more likely to make decisions based on stereotype-like information, such as generic prejudice, when there cognitive resources are limited” (Wiener, Arnott, Winter, & Redmond, 2006). To test this theory, Wiener and his colleagues showed participants mock sexual abuse trial summaries “by varying the amount of time participants had to read them and make verdict decisions, either providing ample time for the task or rushing them to limit their cognitive resources” (Wiener, Arnott, Winter, & Redmond, 2006). They found convincing evidence of generic prejudice in the cases. The study found backing for cognitive resource theory because generic prejudice was persuasive or significant when participants were hurried in their decision-making. According to Wiener et. al., the participants “were more likely to rely on general attitudes about sex offenders in their decisions than they were to rely on case facts” (Wiener, Arnott, Winter, & Redmond, 2006).
There is no denying the possibility for biases to occur in jury decision-making. Even though jurors are sworn under oath, biases can still arise. Generic prejudice, just one of the many types of biases that can occur, may be more influential in some types of cases and under particular situations such as sexual abuse cases. The cognitive resource theory “which states that stress reduces rational decision making by over using a person’s ability to think” may be an explanation as to why this type of bias occurs (The Pennsylvania State University, 2015). So although the explanation for generic prejudice may be attributed to the cognitive resource theory, is there a way to prevent it?
Works Cited
Lieberman, J., & Krauss, D. (2009). Psychology in the courtroom social aspects of trial processes. Farnham: Ashgate.
The Pennsylvania State University (2015). PSYCH424: Applied Social Psychology. Lesson 8: The Legal System.
Vidmar, N. (1997). Generic prejudice and the presumption of guilt in sex abuse trials. Law and Human Behavior, 21(1), 5-25.
Vidmar, N. (2003). When all of us are victims: Juror prejudice and “terrorist” trials. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 78, 1143.
Wiener, R.L., Arnott, L., Winter, R.J. & Redmond, B.F. (2006). Generic Prejudice and the Law: Sexual Assault and Homicide. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28, 145-155.