House of Worship Mass Shooting: The Influence of Defendant Age, Religion, and Victim Religion on Mock-Juror Decision-Making

Abstract

Little is known about how defendant and victim religion influence juror decision-making outcomes in cases of extreme violent crime. The current study sought to examine whether defendant age (16- vs. 35-years-old), and defendant and victim religion (Christian vs. Muslim) influenced mock-jurors’ perceptions and verdict decisions in a religiously motivated mass shooting context. Participants (N = 321) read a mock-trial transcript describing the alleged mass shooting occurring at a place of worship. Participants were asked to provide verdict decisions, rate their perceptions of the defendant and victim, and answer questions related to religious bias and moral outrage toward the defendant. Overall, defendant religion influenced mock-jurors’ judgments such that Christian defendants received more guilty verdicts and less favourable perceptions than Muslim defendants, and victims were perceived more favourably when the defendant was Christian. Moreover, victim religion only influenced guilt ratings, such that mock-jurors were more likely to assign higher guilt ratings to a defendant when the victim was described as Muslim. Moral outrage partially mediated the effect of defendant religion and mock-juror perceptions of the defendant. The results of this study concluded that while defendant age and victim religion have little influence, defendant religion is greatly influential to juror decision-making. This research provides new insight regarding how influential defendant religion is in legal decision-making, and how moral outrage toward the defendant may have practical implications for legal decision-making.