I remember as a child hearing about the conviction of Roy Krones, a man accused of raping and stabbing a woman to death. As a child, I felt guilty that I was scared of him because I knew I was only scared of his physical appearance. Even as a young child I knew it was wrong to have negative feelings about someone’s appearance, let alone assume his guilt based on such. I felt even worse because I thought of how this man’s physical appearance was perpetuating national headlines dubbing him as the “Snaggletooth Killer.”
Over the course of my life I have seen how people relate physical appearance to one’s personality traits. Ugly physical characteristics fuel dialogue that the individual must have ugly personality traits. Krones, who was convicted for the brutal rape and murder of a Tennessee bartender, spent more than eight years behind bars before DNA could prove his innocence.
Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE) occurs when we overestimate the influence of internal factors and underestimate the influence of external factors when we evaluate others’ behavior (Gruman et al., 2017). Research regarding FAE and false confessions have been studied by social psychologists for some time. I applied the Fundamental Attribution Error to Krones from my thought process as a child.
Situational factors (external) are the result of an individual’s behavior. In the case of rape and murder, there are usually many external and internal factors that contribute to the act. Public opinion focuses on factors that exacerbate the likelihood of guilt. In a perfect world, social psychologists could help with jury selection to decrease the likeliness of FAE from occurring.
References
Gruman, J. A. (2017). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
It is also possible the individuals maniging the trial suffered from subconscious prejudices which led to the errored conviction. Jurors are prone to suffere from interest, specific, generic, or normative prejudice. Interest prejudice occurs when the juror has a vested interest in the outcome of the trial (Day & Marion, 2016). Interests such as these could be having had a similar occurence, knowing or become close to a victim or their family, or havig been a victim thremselves. Specific prejudice stems from attitudes or beliefs that may sway their decision (Day & Marion, 2016). These attitudes or beliefs may stem from religion or a personal, moral code which interferes with allowing an impartial decision. Generic prejudice stems from holding certain general beliefs that impede the ability to view evidence impartially (Day & Marion, 2016). These beliefs could be racism, homophobia or others beliefs based in a dislike for a certain group or activity. Finally, normative prejudice occurs when the juror believes there is a preferred decision by the community and therefore that is the one they should make (Day & Marion, 2016).
The presence of any or a combination of these prejudices, in conjunction with FAE may have been the root for the misguided decision. No one law applies to every situation and there are many different variables to each case which make it unique. This is the reason for the judicial system involving group decision rather than a single bulleted list to determine guilt. This method for determining guilt, however, allows for mistakes to be amde and for subjective decisions to be taken. Crimes are difficult and often times we want to blame someone and have it end, but many times it is not that easy, and the wrong person could end up suffering as a reult. Education for individuals withint the judicial system, on the possible erros and unintentional actions they are subject to, could help with this problem.
References
Day, D. M., & Marion, S. B. (2016). Applying Social Psychology to the Criminal. In J. A. Gruman, F. W. Schneider, & L. M. Coutts, Applied Social Psychology : Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (pp. 367-405). SAGE Publications.