Global ETD Search

41	Determinants of Juror Belief in Witness Testimony: The Role of Witness Uncertainty and Certainty DeFranco, Rachel M. 20 April 2016 (has links) No description available. Psychology Cognitive Psychology mock-juror belief in witness testimony witness uncertainty eyewitness testimony confidence credibility
42	Metaphorically Framed Stereotypes, Victim Race, and Attitudes Toward Police: Factors Influencing Juror Cognition and Decision-Making in Police Force Cases Spruch-Feiner, Aliza Jo 10 August 2017 (has links) No description available. Psychology Legal Studies Cognitive Psychology Social Psychology Social Research Metaphorically framed stereotypes metaphors dehumanizing metaphors outgroup metaphors racial stereotypes Victim race Attitudes toward police juror cognition juror decision making police force case cognitive science and law
43	Fatal distraction : does the Texas capital sentencing statute discourage the consideration of mitigating evidence? Vartkessian, Elizabeth S. January 2011 (has links) Whether the capital sentencing statute in Texas provides a vehicle for jurors to give effect to mitigation evidence has been a critical factor when the United States Supreme Court has sought to determine its constitutionality. Unlike the majority of other American jurisdictions which maintain capital punishment as a penalty, Texas utilizes a particularly unique scheme which places an assessment of the defendant’s dangerousness at the center of the sentencing decision. Using data gathered from personally conducted interviews with forty-six former capital jurors and trial transcripts from each trial in which they served, this thesis demonstrates how the current sentencing scheme in Texas fails to provide jurors with an adequate vehicle for considering mitigation evidence. Beginning with an analysis of the process of jury selection this study examines the various ways in which the sentencing scheme is explained to potential jurors by the judge, prosecution, and defense attorneys. Of crucial importance is how the mitigation instruction is reconstituted by trial judges and prosecutors into an extension of the defendant’s potential future dangerousness. Emerging from this analysis is the central role that the interpretation of the sentencing statute by legal actors play in determining how jurors view the evidence presented throughout the trial, as well as what factors they believe they are legally permitted to consider in sentencing. The findings of this study strongly suggest that the focus of the sentencing scheme on the defendant’s dangerousness inhibits jurors’ ability to view mitigation evidence unrelated to the crime as mitigating. Thus, the Texas capital sentencing statute in its application appears to prevent jurors from giving effect to personal mitigation, an essential element of a constitutionally satisfactory death penalty statute. 345.7640773
44	Cross Validation of the Juror Questionnaire of Values and Viewpoints: Sentencing Decisions and Impression Management in Eligible Capital Jurors Hartigan, Sara E 08 1900 (has links) The current dissertation had three primary objectives, categorized into two MTurk studies with capital juror-eligible community members: (a) cross-validate the psychometric properties of the JQVV, (b): explore the role of legal attitudes via the JQVV in mock capital sentencing decisions, and (c): examine the JQVV's ability to detect juror social desirability in capital voir dire. Impressively, Study 1 (N = 552) and Study 2 (N = 313) provided strong and consistent evidence for the JQVV's reliability and construct validity. In the mock juror paradigm, punitive legal attitudes on the JQVV (i.e., Crime-Neg, Convict, and Death-Pos), did not directly affect sentencing decisions, however they indirectly influenced the perception of nearly all other legally relevant variables (e.g., evidence type). For example, participants with more punitive criminal justice attitudes evaluated aggravating evidence more favorably which, in turn, increased death sentence verdicts. Study 1 also underscored the concerningly low levels of comprehension jurors have regarding judicial instructions and other relevant legal knowledge (e.g., the definition of aggravating). In Study 2, the support-life and support-death groups evidenced divergent patterns of social desirability, although support-death participants did not dramatically alter their scores between the genuine and social desirability condition. Additionally, the JQVV Pros-Cyn and Justice-Pos scales were moderately effective at identifying social desirability, marking the first ever questionnaire to examine juror response styles. Implications for research, professional practice in capital jury selection, and legal policy are discussed. juries capital sentencing death penalty voir dire jury selection JQVV social desirability juror comprehension Psychology, Clinical Psychology, Experimental Psychology, Social
45	Innocent Until Proven Guilty: An Examination of Jury Selection and Juror Bias Godwin, Mackenzie L. 29 May 2019 (has links) No description available. Criminology Law Sociology bias juror bias jury jury selection Batson v Kentucky Flowers v Mississippi peremptory challenge challenge for a cause voir dire media bias
46	Attitudes on Legal Insanity and the Impact of Race Bolin, Jerie J. January 2020 (has links) No description available. Psychology
47	Pretrial Attitudes and Their Influence on Interpretation of Case Evidence and Mock Juror Decision-Making in Insanity Defense Cases Gonzales, Justine M. L. January 2017 (has links) No description available. Psychology Not guilty by reason of insanity NGRI insanity defense legal insanity fair trial legal psychology pretrial attitudes juror decision-making evidence type
48	It Must Have Been Him: Coherence Effects within the Legal System Carbone, Jonathan N 19 June 2015 (has links) The present series of studies examine how jurors and public defenders evaluate different pieces of evidence and integrate them into a coherent conclusion within the context of a criminal case. Previous research has shown that in situations where both sides of the case are compelling, decision-makers nevertheless come to highly confident and polarized decisions, called coherence shifts (Simon, 2004). The present research sought to expand on coherence effects, improve upon the methodology of previous studies, and explore potential moderators of coherence. In Study 1, mock jurors (n = 306) read about a criminal case and evaluated multiple pieces of evidence at various points throughout the case. Results indicated that participants exhibited pronounced coherence shifts (i.e., their evaluations of the various pieces of evidence (a) became more consistent as the case progressed, and (b) were evaluated in line with their initial leanings) using an improved methodology that randomized evidence order and evidence valence. Furthermore, participants’ interim leanings of guilt or innocence biased their subsequent evaluations of ambiguous evidence. The direction and magnitude of participants’ coherence shifts were predicted by their pretrial dispositions towards prosecution and defense. Participants lacked awareness of how their perceptions of the evidence have shifted. Coherence shifts were not, however, moderated by asking mock jurors to justify their decisions, or by asking mock jurors to play devil’s advocate while considering each piece of evidence, underscoring the pervasiveness of this cognitive bias. Study 2 examined whether actual public defenders experience coherence shifts and how those shifts relate to the plea bargaining process; however, no coherence shifts were observed. Study 3 examined whether the timing of the defense’s presentation of their case could reduce coherence effects; results indicated that reading about the defense’s case immediately after the prosecution’s case (c.f. following a delay) marginally (p = .09) reduced coherence effects among jurors who acquitted the defendant, suggesting one potential strategy to mitigate this bias. Juror decision-making coherence shifts decision making coherence effects lawyer decision-making legal psychology pre-trial attitudes jury decision-making Cognitive Psychology Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Law Law and Philosophy Law and Psychology Other Law Other Psychology Psychology Social and Behavioral Sciences Social Psychology
49	The Impact of Pretrial Publicity on Perceptions of Guilt Drew, Ryan M. January 2015 (has links) Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / Ninety-eight empirical effects examining the impact of pretrial publicity (PTP) on perceptions of guilt were meta-analytically analyzed. As hypothesized, results suggested that anti-defendant PTP was associated with increased perceptions of defendant guilt, whereas pro-defendant PTP was associated with decreased perceptions of defendant guilt. Additionally, several moderator variables were examined. The results suggested that the size of the effect of PTP is dependent upon several variables, including the level of the analysis (jury-level vs. juror level), the type of crime involved in the case, the nature of the information provided to the participants in the control condition, the reality of the case used in the study, the delay between PTP exposure and the collection of the verdict preference, the medium of the PTP presentation, the publication status of the data source, and the outcome measure utilized. Pretrial Publicity PTP Media Juror Jury Guilt Culpability Jury -- United States -- Decision making Mass media -- Research -- United States Guilt (Law) -- Research Attitude (Psychology) Law -- Psychological aspects Jury instructions -- United States Verdicts -- Decision making
50	»Wer konkurriert womit worum?« Ein neues Literaturpreis-Modell / »Who competes with whom by which for what?« A new model of literary awards Dahnke, Michael 20 April 2015 (has links) Literaturpreise sind ein Phänomen des 20. Jahrhunderts. Ihre Zahl ist im deutschsprachigen Raum in den letzten Jahrzehnten deutlich gestiegen. Die im Rahmen dieser Arbeit über mehrere Jahre erfolgte Forschung hat gezeigt, dass für ein umfassendes Verständnis dieser Art Preise zwingend weitere Akteure in den Blick zu nehmen sind. Neben den Vertretern Preise vergebender Organisationen, den Autoren und Geldgebern sind das die Juroren, die Repräsentanten der Verlage einschließlich weiterer Literatur vermarktender Unternehmen sowie die ›reinen‹ Leser. In der Dissertation werden literarische Auszeichnungen zunächst innerhalb der literaturwissenschaftlichen Forschung verortet. Dafür werden sie aus drei verschiedenen Blickwinkeln vorgestellt: einem historischen, einem kontextuellen und einem begrifflichen. Anschließend wird die bisherige Forschung zu Literaturpreisen vorgestellt und das Potential des bisher einzigen Modells deutschsprachiger Literaturpreise gewürdigt. Der neue Ansatz besteht aus drei Komponenten: erstens einer theoretischen Modellierung der genannten sechs Arten von Akteuren. Diese werden als über bestimmte Möglichkeiten verfügende ›Konkurrenten‹ betrachtet, die sich um für sie spezifische ›Konkurrenzobjekte‹ bemühen. Die zweite Komponente ist die diachrone und asynchrone Beschreibung literarischer Auszeichnungen. So können mehrere, zeitlich einander folgende Verleihungen einer Auszeichnung genauso wie gleichzeitig stattfindende Vergaben verschiedener Preise sowie die dabei erfolgenden Handlungen der einzelnen Akteure theoriegeleitet zueinander in Beziehung gesetzt und analysiert werden. Die dritte Komponente ist Bourdieus ›literarisches Feld‹. Es wird als für diese Akteure zentraler Bereich vorausgesetzt. Die Vorzüge der diachronen Betrachtung werden unter anderem mit zwei für die Geschichte des Bremer Literaturpreises wichtigen Konflikten der Jahre 1959/60 und 1979/80 belegt. Auch der Streit um die Verwendung des Namens ›Thomas Mann‹ für zwei verschiedene literarische Auszeichnungen in den Jahren 2008 und 2009 zeigt deutlich: Das für Literaturpreise relevante Geschehen spielt sich keineswegs nur jeweils zwischen den Vertretern einer einen Preis vergebenden Organisation und einem oder mehreren Autoren ab. Darum müssen auch Konflikte zwischen den Mitgliedern mehrerer Preise vergebender Organisationen theoretisch modellierbar sein. Weiter werden mit dem Modell Erklärungen dafür angeboten, warum nicht immer alle Auszeichnungen die von den Gründern gewünschten Wirkungen erzielen. Schließlich gilt der Finanzierbarkeit von Literaturpreisen ein besonderes Augenmerk. Bei der Forschung für die vorliegende Arbeit wurden fast ausschließlich Quellen zu Preise verleihenden Organisationen benutzt. Nach deren systematischer Auswertung ist klar geworden, welche Objekte und Mittel für die Vertreter der einzelnen Konkurrentengruppen überhaupt in Frage kommen. Die Kenntnisse über die verschiedenen Arten Konkurrenten sind möglicherweise noch deutlich erweiterbar, wenn darüber hinausreichende Quellen zu Autoren, Juroren und Verlagsrepräsentanten sowie die anderer Literatur vermarktender Unternehmen hinzu gezogen würden. Dafür werden am Ende der Arbeit Vorschläge unterbreitet. 400 800 Georg-Büchner-Preis Joseph-Breitbach-Preis Wilhelm-Raabe-Literaturpreis Deutscher Jugendliteraturpreis Ingeborg-Bachmann-Preis Thomas-Mann-Preis Gottfried Keller-Preis Bremer Literaturpreis Kleist-Preis Mara-Cassens-Preis Hermann-Hesse-Literaturpreis Mülheimer Dramatikerpreis Hugo-Ball-Preis Lyrikpreis Meran open mike Ida Dehmel Literaturpreis GEDOK Literaturförderpreis Junges Literaturforum Hessen-Thüringen Corine Internationaler Buchpreis Literaturpreise Literaturpreis Handlungstheorie Pierre Bourdieu Bourdieu Kapitaltheorie kulturelles Kapital Georg Franck Autor Autoren Preise verleihende Institutionen Preisgeber Geldgeber Juror Juroren Verlage Verlag Preisverleihung Verleihungszeremonie Literary awards action theory Pierre Bourdieu Bourdieu capital theory cultural capital Georg Franck presenting organizations authors judge jugding panel financial sponsors financial backers judges publishing houses publishers readers awarding ceremony awarding ceremonies Philologien (PPN621711713)

Search results