Tearful stories, stray dogs, “shock videos” or “shock news”… Japanese scientists have found that with the help of these simple tricks, you can pity not only ordinary people, but also impartial judges.
Jurors in criminal proceedings must be impartial and decide on the guilt or innocence of the defendant, based solely on the evidence and arguments presented to the court. However, statements are often made during the process and materials are shown that in themselves do nothing to establish the truth in the case. For example, during a murder trial, the father of a murdered person may come forward with a statement about his suffering and stating that the murder of his son ruined his life. Or, prosecutors may show shocking crime scene photographs that have a strong emotional effect on the jury, but in themselves say nothing about the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
Pass the tests
- Who are you in a relationship: a judge, a child, a hermit or a merchant?
- Are you visual, auditory, or kinesthetic?
Japanese researchers Kayo Matsuo and Yuji Itoh of Keio University conducted an experiment to find out how this emotional impact affects jury decisions. The experiment involved 127 students (38 men, 89 women) who played the role of jurors in a conditional trial. They were read a transcript of a court session in the case of a homeless man accused of murdering a student, which he allegedly committed on purpose so as not to live on the street and go to prison. The prosecution had little evidence, and the accused, although he initially confessed, later changed his testimony and began to insist on his innocence.
Some of the students listened to the version of the transcript, which did not include the emotional speech of the father of the murdered woman, they also did not see the photographs of the “body”. Only 46% of them considered the homeless person guilty of murder.
Read more:
- Petr Nalich: “Do not judge”
Another group of students listened to a version that included a statement by the father, in which he talked about his grief, recalled how kind and smart his daughter was, and described the hatred he felt for the defendant. He did not disclose any significant facts or evidence in the case. Despite this, 71% of the students from this group considered the defendant guilty. And of those who listened to their father’s speech and, in addition, saw photographs of the “victim’s body” with “mortal wounds”, 79% “passed” a guilty verdict. At the same time, the photos themselves, without an emotional performance, did not have a significant impact on the verdict of the subjects, despite the fact that they were considered quite “shocking”.
Read more:
- Expertise: why do we need a psychologist in court?
The effect of the father’s speech was partly explained by the negative emotions (anger and disgust towards the defendant) that she provoked in the participants of the experiment. In particular, among those students who listened to her and at the same time considered the defendant guilty, 33% “passed down” a death sentence. Among those who did not listen to their father’s speech, there were only 16% of them. It is also worth considering that the text of the father’s speech was read out by the experimenter in a neutral tone – most likely, such a speech would have an even greater effect on a real trial.
Summing up, the researchers note that “emotional factors may prevent jurors from reaching an objective verdict.” They believe that further research is needed to find ways to reduce the influence of emotions on the jury’s verdict and thus reduce the number of false accusations.
For more information, see K. Matsuo, Y. Itoh, “Effects of emotional testimony and gruesome photographs on mock jurors’ decisions and negative emotions”, Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, online publication June 23, 2015.