Kimberly Schweitzer

Public Perceptions of the Justifiability of Police Shootings: The Role of Body Cameras in a Pre- and Post-Ferguson Experiment

We conducted two studies, wherein participants from across the United States watched, heard, or read the transcript of an actual police shooting event. The data for Study 1 were collected prior to media coverage of a widely publicized police shooting in Ferguson, Missouri. Results indicated that participants who could hear or see the event were significantly more likely to perceive the shooting was justified than they were when they read a transcript of the encounter. Shortly after the events in Ferguson, Missouri, we replicated the first study, finding quite different results. Although dissatisfaction with the shooting was seen in all forms of presentation, video evidence produced the highest citizen perceptions of an unjustified shooting and audio evidence produced the least. Citizens were nonetheless overwhelmingly favorable to requiring police to use body cameras. Body-mounted cameras with high-quality audio capabilities are recommended for police departments to consider.

Police shootings and body cameras one year post-Ferguson

ABSTRACT Police departments across many countries have rapidly begun implementing the use of body cameras to document their interactions with the public. Previous research has shown that body camera footage of a police shooting was viewed positively before, but negatively immediately following, the media coverage of the Ferguson, MO shooting of Michael Brown [Culhane, S.E., Boman IV, J., and Schweitzer, K., 2016. Public perceptions of the justifiability of police shootings: the role of body cameras in a pre/post-Ferguson experiment. Police quarterly, 19, 251–274. doi:10.1177/1098611116651403]. This paper presents a partial replication of their final study. In this replication, participants watched, heard, or read about a police shooting involving a man with a weapon. The data collection was conducted one year after Brown’s death. Results indicated that judgments of the shooting’s justification returned to those seen before the Ferguson incident. When participants could see the event unfold, they were significantly more likely to judge the shooting was justified when compared to participants in the study shortly after the Ferguson incident.

The Impact of Angry Versus Sad Victim Impact Statements on Mock Jurors’ Sentencing Decisions in a Capital Trial

The present study tested the effects of angry and sad victim impact statements (VIS) on jury eligible participants’ decisions. Death qualified participants (N = 581) watched the penalty phase of a capital trial that varied the presence and emotional content of the VIS (angry, sad, or no VIS) along with the strength of mitigating evidence (weak or strong). Results revealed that Angry VIS led to an increase in death sentences, whereas Sad VIS did not. Furthermore, participants who reported becoming angry during the trial were more likely to render a death sentence, but participants who became sad during the trial were not. No interaction was found between VIS and strength of mitigating evidence, but participants exposed to the angry VIS did rate the mitigating evidence as less important to their decisions. The results indicate that VIS are not inherently biasing, nor are all emotions equally impactful on sentencing decisions.

The Impact of Emotions on Juror Judgments and Decision-Making

Emotions have not received a great deal of attention among psycholegal researchers, but interest in this area has grown during the past decade. In this chapter, the role of emotions in juror decision making is examined. In the first section of the chapter, the focus is on the basic theories surrounding emotions and judgments, as well as the degree to which the general theories of emotions and decision making are relevant to decisions made in the courtroom. Next, trial factors that may prompt specific emotional reactions from jurors are explored. In the third section of the chapter, psycholegal research that has examined the effect of jurors’ emotions on the decisions they make during trial is discussed. In the fourth section, potential moderators that might alter the relation between emotions and decisions are explored. Last, the limitations of the psycholegal research and the legal implications of the research are discussed.

Male and Female Parole Decisions: Is Paying Your Dues or Saying You're Sorry More Important?

Researchers have suggested that females and males consider different factors when making legal decisions; females consider offender remorse more whereas males consider more tangible punishments, such as serving time. The current study investigates gender differences when making legal decisions. The participants (n = 596) read one of three parole scenarios (armed robbery, arson, or drug trafficking) where inmate remorse and time served were manipulated, and decided whether to grant or deny parole. The results show that the participants were less likely to grant parole to the armed robbery inmate, followed by arson and drug trafficking. Additionally, time served affected decisions more consistently than remorse shown, regardless of participant gender. Contrary to hypotheses, women rated the inmates more positively when they had served the majority of their time. The current study suggests that time served is an important predictor of decisions, and that remorse may not be enough to make people agree to reduce punishment or grant freedom.

Unintended, but still blameworthy: the roles of awareness, desire, and anger in negligence, restitution, and punishment

ABSTRACT Two experiments (Experiment 1 N = 149, Experiment 2 N = 141) investigated how two mental states that underlie how perceivers reason about intentional action (awareness of action and desire for an outcome) influence blame and punishment for unintended (i.e., negligent) harms, and the role of anger in this process. Specifically, this research explores how the presence of awareness (of risk in acting, or simply of acting) and/or desire in an acting agents mental states influences perceptions of negligence, judgements that the acting agent owes restitution to a victim, and the desire to punish the agent, mediated by anger. In both experiments, awareness and desire led to increased anger at the agent and increased perception of negligence. Anger mediated the effect of awareness and desire on negligence rather than negligence mediating the effect of mental states on anger. Anger also mediated punishment, and negligence mediated the effects of anger on restitution. We discuss how perceivers consider mental states such as awareness, desire, and knowledge when reasoning about blame and punishment for unintended harms, and the role of anger in this process.

What Evidence Matters to Jurors? The Prevalence and Importance of Different Homicide Trial Evidence to Mock Jurors

The present research explores how important different trial evidence is to mock jurors’ decisions. Study 1 surveys legal professionals to determine what evidence is common at homicide trials. Study 2 utilizes the list of evidence generated in Study 1 to ask mock jurors to report how important each piece of evidence would be in deciding their verdicts. The results indicate that DNA is most important to mock jurors, followed by fingerprints, the weapon, video records, crime-scene photos, gunshot residue, bodily secretions, video confession, testimony from a forensic expert, and eyewitness testimony. Study 3 utilizes a different methodology wherein mock jurors were presented with folders labeled with different evidence and asked to choose the piece of evidence they wanted to learn more about first, second, and so on. The results from Study 3 indicate again that DNA evidence is most important to mock jurors, followed by video confession evidence, eyewitness testimony, and fingerprint evidence. Implications are discussed.

Reversal of Fortune: When Does Increased Distance from an Initial Negligent Act Make One More Blameworthy?

Early investigations into the effect of distance between negligent acts and subsequent harm demonstrated a causal proximity bias in judgments of blame. Specifically, fewer mediating steps between a negligent act and subsequent harm resulted in more blameworthy defendants. However, we reasoned that sometimes extra steps in a causal chain could be viewed as additional opportunities for the defendant to intervene and prevent a harmful outcome. Therefore, extra steps, or increased causal distance, without intervention by the defendant would make the defendant seem more blameworthy. Across three studies (N = 338), we demonstrated that although reversing the causal proximity bias is relatively easy, obtaining the original causal proximity bias is surprisingly difficult. We argue that increasing the number of causal steps to an outcome can be perceived as missed opportunities for the perpetrator to take corrective action. Therefore, the more steps to an outcome, the more blameworthy a defendant is judged.