陪审员资格成人的观点:死刑案件陪审员价值观和观点问卷(JQVV)的验证

IF 1.1 4区 社会学 Q3 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
R. Rogers, Sara E. Hartigan, Minqi Pan, E. Drogin, Jordan E. Donson
{"title":"陪审员资格成人的观点:死刑案件陪审员价值观和观点问卷(JQVV)的验证","authors":"R. Rogers, Sara E. Hartigan, Minqi Pan, E. Drogin, Jordan E. Donson","doi":"10.1080/1068316X.2022.2034816","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Criminal defendants have a 6th Amendment right to an impartial jury, but customary methods of jury selection often fail to uncover deeply held juror attitudes. Addressing the death penalty as a polarizing issue, the Juror Questionnaire of Values and Viewpoints (JQVV) was validated and cross-validated with two separate MTurk studies of capital jury-eligible adults. With complete anonymity assured by MTurk, Study 1 assessed death-penalty attitudes for 354 juror-eligible participants and their likelihood of mispresenting their views during voir dire. Validity of the JQVV was assessed with the Pretrial Juror Attitude Questionnaire (PJAQ) and predicted differences for Support-Death and Support-Life group. Study 2, with an entirely new sample of 313 juror-eligible adults, cross-validated the JQVV and tested the effects of positive impression management (PIM). Importantly, Support-Death mostly expressed their candid views even with the PIM condition. Although Support-Life frequently denied their death-penalty views, the JQVV Prosecution-Cynicism (Pro-Cyn) scale proved moderately effective at identifying their denials. Professional implications for capital jury selection are discussed.","PeriodicalId":47845,"journal":{"name":"Psychology Crime & Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perspectives of juror-eligible adults: validation of the Juror Questionnaire of Values and Viewpoints (JQVV) for capital cases\",\"authors\":\"R. Rogers, Sara E. Hartigan, Minqi Pan, E. Drogin, Jordan E. Donson\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/1068316X.2022.2034816\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Criminal defendants have a 6th Amendment right to an impartial jury, but customary methods of jury selection often fail to uncover deeply held juror attitudes. Addressing the death penalty as a polarizing issue, the Juror Questionnaire of Values and Viewpoints (JQVV) was validated and cross-validated with two separate MTurk studies of capital jury-eligible adults. With complete anonymity assured by MTurk, Study 1 assessed death-penalty attitudes for 354 juror-eligible participants and their likelihood of mispresenting their views during voir dire. Validity of the JQVV was assessed with the Pretrial Juror Attitude Questionnaire (PJAQ) and predicted differences for Support-Death and Support-Life group. Study 2, with an entirely new sample of 313 juror-eligible adults, cross-validated the JQVV and tested the effects of positive impression management (PIM). Importantly, Support-Death mostly expressed their candid views even with the PIM condition. Although Support-Life frequently denied their death-penalty views, the JQVV Prosecution-Cynicism (Pro-Cyn) scale proved moderately effective at identifying their denials. Professional implications for capital jury selection are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47845,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychology Crime & Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychology Crime & Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2034816\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology Crime & Law","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2034816","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

刑事被告有权获得公正的陪审团,但传统的陪审团选择方法往往无法揭示陪审员根深蒂固的态度。将死刑作为一个两极分化的问题来处理,陪审员价值观和观点问卷(JQVV)与土耳其对符合死刑陪审员资格的成年人进行的两项独立研究进行了验证和交叉验证。在MTurk保证完全匿名的情况下,研究1评估了354名符合陪审员资格的参与者对死刑的态度,以及他们在口头陈述中错误陈述观点的可能性。采用审前陪审员态度问卷(PJAQ)评估JQVV的效度,并预测支持-死亡组和支持-生命组的差异。研究2采用了全新的313名符合陪审员资格的成年人样本,交叉验证了JQVV,并测试了积极印象管理(PIM)的效果。重要的是,即使在PIM条件下,Support-Death也大多表达了他们的坦率观点。尽管支持生命组织经常否认他们的死刑观点,但JQVV检控犬儒主义(Pro-Cyn)量表证明,在识别他们的否认方面,效果中等。讨论了死刑陪审团选择的专业含义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Perspectives of juror-eligible adults: validation of the Juror Questionnaire of Values and Viewpoints (JQVV) for capital cases
ABSTRACT Criminal defendants have a 6th Amendment right to an impartial jury, but customary methods of jury selection often fail to uncover deeply held juror attitudes. Addressing the death penalty as a polarizing issue, the Juror Questionnaire of Values and Viewpoints (JQVV) was validated and cross-validated with two separate MTurk studies of capital jury-eligible adults. With complete anonymity assured by MTurk, Study 1 assessed death-penalty attitudes for 354 juror-eligible participants and their likelihood of mispresenting their views during voir dire. Validity of the JQVV was assessed with the Pretrial Juror Attitude Questionnaire (PJAQ) and predicted differences for Support-Death and Support-Life group. Study 2, with an entirely new sample of 313 juror-eligible adults, cross-validated the JQVV and tested the effects of positive impression management (PIM). Importantly, Support-Death mostly expressed their candid views even with the PIM condition. Although Support-Life frequently denied their death-penalty views, the JQVV Prosecution-Cynicism (Pro-Cyn) scale proved moderately effective at identifying their denials. Professional implications for capital jury selection are discussed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
7.10%
发文量
83
期刊介绍: This journal promotes the study and application of psychological approaches to crime, criminal and civil law, and the influence of law on behavior. The content includes the aetiology of criminal behavior and studies of different offender groups; crime detection, for example, interrogation and witness testimony; courtroom studies in areas such as jury behavior, decision making, divorce and custody, and expert testimony; behavior of litigants, lawyers, judges, and court officers, both in and outside the courtroom; issues of offender management including prisons, probation, and rehabilitation initiatives; and studies of public, including the victim, reactions to crime and the legal process.
×
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