Double jeopardy: the effects of retrial knowledge on juror decisions

IF 2.1 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
James Munro, Fred Motson, Jim Turner, L. Frumkin, L. Curley
{"title":"Double jeopardy: the effects of retrial knowledge on juror decisions","authors":"James Munro, Fred Motson, Jim Turner, L. Frumkin, L. Curley","doi":"10.1108/jcp-03-2024-0021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nSince the passage of the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011, mirroring changes in other jurisdictions, a person who has been acquitted in Scotland can, under certain circumstances, be retried for that offence. Jurors could have knowledge of the previous acquittal verdict (whether not guilty or not proven) through media sources, potentially biasing the new jury in their decision-making. The purpose of this study is to detemine the influence of knowing a trial is a retrial, on conviction rates.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThe current study invited 253 participants to give a verdict to a mock murder trial after either receiving pretrial information about the original verdict or no information about the case being a retrial.\n\n\nFindings\nSignificantly more acquittal verdicts were given when the participants were told that it was a retrial, compared to the control condition, irrespective of whether the prior verdict was not guilty or not proven.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nFindings are discussed in light of jurors’ knowledge of legal concepts and acquittal verdicts and the increasing exposure of the general Scottish public to the not-proven verdict due to increased media coverage.\n","PeriodicalId":44013,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Criminal Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Criminal Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jcp-03-2024-0021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose Since the passage of the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011, mirroring changes in other jurisdictions, a person who has been acquitted in Scotland can, under certain circumstances, be retried for that offence. Jurors could have knowledge of the previous acquittal verdict (whether not guilty or not proven) through media sources, potentially biasing the new jury in their decision-making. The purpose of this study is to detemine the influence of knowing a trial is a retrial, on conviction rates. Design/methodology/approach The current study invited 253 participants to give a verdict to a mock murder trial after either receiving pretrial information about the original verdict or no information about the case being a retrial. Findings Significantly more acquittal verdicts were given when the participants were told that it was a retrial, compared to the control condition, irrespective of whether the prior verdict was not guilty or not proven. Originality/value Findings are discussed in light of jurors’ knowledge of legal concepts and acquittal verdicts and the increasing exposure of the general Scottish public to the not-proven verdict due to increased media coverage.
一罪不二审:重审知识对陪审员决定的影响
目的自 2011 年《一罪不二审(苏格兰)法》通过以来,与其他司法管辖区的变化如出一辙,在某些情况下,在苏格兰被宣告无罪的人可以因该罪行重新接受审判。陪审员可能会通过媒体渠道了解到之前的无罪判决(无论是无罪还是未被证实),这可能会使新的陪审团在决策时产生偏差。设计/方法/途径本研究邀请 253 名参与者在收到有关原判决的审前信息或未收到有关案件为重审的信息后,对模拟谋杀案审判做出判决。研究结果与对照组相比,当参与者被告知这是一起重审案件时,无论之前的判决是无罪还是未经证实,作出无罪判决的人数都显著增加。原创性/价值研究结果将根据陪审员对法律概念和无罪判决的了解程度,以及媒体报道增加导致苏格兰公众越来越多地接触未经证实判决的情况进行讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Criminal Psychology
Journal of Criminal Psychology CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信