Delayed allegations of sexual abuse, complainant credibility and juror verdict

This study investigated laypersons' perceptions of memory evidence in a mock childhood sexual abuse trial. Results indicated that delay, memory type (continuous vs. recovered) and the nature of the alleged sexual assault (penetrative vs. fondling) influenced both how witnesses were perceived and the outcome of the trial.

The impact of propensity evidence on juror decisions

The thesis's study evaluated the effect that the admission of an accused's prior criminal behaviour had on mock jurors' verdict decisions. The findings indicated that exposing participants to evidence about any previous offence biases the decision. Further, the greater the similarity of the previous offence with the present charge, the more likely the accused was found guilty. The clinical portfolio seeks to demonstrate through the presentation of four case studies, the various pathways (or offence trajectories) contained within the Pathways Model that may lead an adult male to sexually offend against a child.

Enhancing juror decision-making through provision of transcripts

This thesis explored how much evidence jurors remember when instructed to reach a verdict. Results indicated that jurors required to rely on memory recalled significantly less evidence than jurors provided with access to the court transcript and were less confident than aided jurors that they had returned the 'right' verdict. The portfolio explored a possible association between chronic childhood challenging behaviours and later offending behaviour in individuals with intellectual disability. Includes four clinical case studies. The importance of early intervention is illustrated.

Societal constructions of the psycho-legal notion of mental impairment in Victoria

This thesis explored the factors relevant to decision-making when the defence of mental impairment is raised in Victoria. Findings indicate that disorder type, crime outcome, and the relationship between victim and offender were significantly associated with verdict decisions, while offender gender did not play a significant role in responsibility decisions. The portfolio discusses the role of co-morbid psychopathology in the assessment and treatment of veterans with chronic PTSD by presenting four case histories.

Community's attitudes towards intimate partner homicide

The thesis aimed to explore the Victorian Community's attitudes towards intimate partner homicide committed in the context of jealousy and domestic violence. Results revealed that the immediacy of the accused's actions, the gender of the accused, and the gender of the participant interacted to influence participants' verdict and blame responses. The portfolio explored the complexities and challenges that face mental health professionals in deciding the appropriate weighting of child's wishes in child protection assessments. The four case studies presented were chosen due to the attention that was paid to the child's wishes throughout the assessments.

Murder, self defence, defensive homicide?

Research focussed on recent amendments to Victorian homicide defence legislation, investigating community decisions in cases where a fatality followed an alleged sexual assualt. Findings suggest that legislation may not match community sentiment and jurors require comprehensive instructions. Further, relationship history, accused, deceased and juror gender have an impact on verdict.

Adolescent victims with an intellectual disability : perceived credibility in cases of sexual abuse

The study aimed to assess perceptions of the credibility of adolescent victims with intellectual disability. Results revealed that victim and participant characteristics influenced perceptions of the credibility of the victim and verdict responses. Findings related to the level of ID, type of offence, perceptions of competency, honesty, suggestibility, and gender of victim and participant.

Simulated jury decision making in online focus groups

Purpose – A significant issue in jury research has been the use of individual jurors to analyse jury decision-making. This paper aimed to examine the applicability of computer-mediated communication to a mock jury deliberation study.

Design/methodology/approach – Groups of three to five Australian residents anonymously attended a secure chat room and participated in a semi-structured discussion about a simulated child sexual assault scenario. Deliberation transcripts were analysed thematically using NVivo. A hermeneutic framework was used to analyse the deliberation transcripts.

Findings – Five interrelated themes were revealed, each reflecting the tools online juries used to communicate, create meaning, and arrive at a verdict. Electronic jury deliberation promoted an understanding of how people make sense of child sexual assault cases in Australia today.

Originality/value – This study advanced the understanding of online decision making in a child sexual assault scenario. It demonstrated that knowledge of how juries deliberate and create meaning could improve our understanding of how verdicts are achieved. Electronic mock juries are a valuable adjunct to traditional jury deliberation studies because they are cost effective, time efficient, and offer wider recruitment opportunities.

The influence of propensity evidence on juror decision-making

The influence of age, gender, and presentation of propensity evidence on juror decision-making was examined. Results showed that age was significantly related to verdict outcome, with older adults more likely to deliver a verdict of not guilty. Ceiling effects potentially obscured any significant effects of propensity evidence on juror decision-making.

Mock jury attitudes towards credibility, age, and guilt in a fictional child sexual assault scenario

Low conviction rates of child sexual assault (CSA) remain a persistent social problem in Australia. One reason for this may be the impact of attitudes regarding the victims when the evidence is weak. This article examines the effects of victim age on perceptions of credibility and verdict in a CSA case. Eleven electronic focus groups deliberated a fictional CSA case, in which the age of the child was systemically varied between 6 and 15 years. Deliberation transcripts were analysed with NVivo (Version 9, QSR International Pty Ltd., Burlington, MA, USA), from which thematic clusters were derived. Results showed that as the child's age increased, credibility and guilty verdicts decreased. In addition, testimony alone had little impact in influencing the verdict. These findings suggest that in lieu of corroborating evidence, increasing supporting information, such as expert testimony, and providing structured deliberation for the jury may reduce the influence of victim blame, particularly when the child victim is older.

Jurors' consideration of inadmissible evidence: A motivational explanation

Procedural justice research suggests that, as decision makers in a trial, jurors may be unwilling to disregard inadmissible evidence if they believe it will lead to a just outcome. In an experimental study, three hypotheses were tested: participants reading trial evidence while assuming the role of a juror (rather than observer) would report stronger motivations to protect the community; motivations to protect the community would be associated with higher conviction rates; and participants would be more likely to follow judicial instructions to disregard inadmissible evidence when they assumed an observer (rather than juror) role. Findings indicated that participants were more likely to convict the defendant when they experienced higher motivations to protect the community, reinforcing the importance of studying juror motivations. However, results revealed a complex pattern of factors affecting juror motivations as well as verdict decisions. Results are discussed in terms of the effectiveness of the curative instruction, and key directions for future research.

Narratives of a race: how the media judged a presidential debate

The first debate in 2008 was a turning point in the presidential electioncampaign: a race that was close before the debate turned decisively inObama’s favor following it. This article explores how the media reachedtheir verdict that “Obama won.” We examine two aspects of this problem:how, in practice, the media reached this verdict and whether they madethe right decision from a normative standpoint. Based on content analysisof debate transcripts, we argue that the media interpreted the debate bysynthesizing three pre-debate narratives in roughly equal proportions.Crucially, two of these narratives favored Obama. We also find that the“Obama won” verdict was consistent with what we might expect had thedebate been judged by a public-spirited umpire.