The dispositional need for cognitive closure indirectly predicts mock jurors' sentencing decisions through right-wing authoritarianism.

One reason people are motivated to hold right-wing authoritarian beliefs is the need to manage uncertainty. Right-wing authoritarianism provides a stable source of black-and-white 'answers' about the social world - obey established authorities and norms and show hostility to deviants. Right-wing authoritarianism, in turn, is positively associated with more punitive attitudes and judgements. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between mock capital jurors' need for cognitive closure and sentencing decisions through right-wing authoritarianism. Four-hundred and fifty-one jury-eligible adults read a hypothetical capital case, weighed aggravating and mitigating evidence and chose a sentence. They also responded to items measuring right-wing authoritarianism and the need for cognitive closure. The need for cognitive closure was indirectly related to choosing a death sentence through right-wing authoritarianism and the weighing of aggravators and mitigators. Theoretical and practical implications, as well as directions for future studies, are discussed.

The effects of emotion and juvenile diagnoses on parole release decisions: An experimental approach.

Parole boards are often required to make many release recommendations after reviewing a substantial amount of information in a short timeframe. While making release decisions, parole board members might be motivated to sacrifice accuracy and, instead, use heuristics, such as their emotions. Emotions might increase the reliance on risk or threat related information, such as an inmate's mental illness status. The current study applies the appraisal tendency framework of emotion to assess the impact of emotion on parole decisions involving juvenile mental health diagnoses. Using a 3(emotion: anger, compassion, and control) x 4(mental illness: conduct disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, depression, and control) factorial design, this study examined the extent to which mock parole board members' emotions impacted evaluations of inmates with juvenile mental illness diagnoses and subsequent release decisions. Results indicated that there was no effect of emotion on parole decisions. However, the inmates' mental illnesses did play a role in parole release decisions. Specifically, parole candidates with depression were released on parole at higher rates compared to conduct disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and the control condition. Policy implications are discussed.

Examining the effect of religiosity, moral disengagement, personal attribution, comprehension and proximity on juror decision making regarding insanity pleas.

Legal attitudes, religion, and attributions relate to insanity defense attitudes and legal decisions in insanity cases. Religious fundamentalism has consistently predicted punitiveness associated with insanity; however, the current research focuses on moral disengagement as an explanatory link in the fundamentalist and insanity chain. Additional exploratory interests examined how defendants' perceived proximity to jurors might act as a potential moderator. The current study uses factorial survey design to examine the relationships between the variables using a mock jury insanity trial. Results suggest religious fundamentalism is related to harsher verdicts and sentences, and these relationships are mediated by moral disengagement attributions, authoritarian attitudes towards the persons with mental illness, and negative attitudes towards the insanity defense. Based on findings, prosecution and defense should consider moral and religious themes presented in their arguments. Additionally, defendants pleading insanity should be aware of how juror attitudes and biases might affect the trial and verdict processes.

Release or Denial: Evaluating the Roles of Emotion and Risk in Parole Decisions.

Parole boards often incorporate numerous factors when making release decisions. These factors are typically related to the inmates' case files. However, in some instances, parole boards' decisions are influenced by factors outside of the case files, sometimes referred to as extra-legal factors. According to the emotion as social information model, emotion can communicate specific messages to others, and in this case, parole board members might unknowingly incorporate their own emotions and inmates' emotional displays into their decisions. The current study examines the role of parole board member and inmate emotional expressions as predictors of parole release decisions. Parole hearings were coded for emotion, parole board and inmate gender, supporter presence, and risk scores. Overall, risk scores and parole board members' emotions predicted release decisions. Higher risk scores were associated with a lower likelihood of release, and inmates' negative emotion was related to a lower likelihood of release. Implications are discussed.

Actor-observer asymmetry in perceptions of parole board release decisions.

In the current study, the actor-observer effect is tested with both mock parole board members and the public evaluating the responsibility of parole board members for a decision resulting in a parolee reoffending and committing a murder. Participants (two samples with a combined N = 1317) were randomly assigned to act as a mock parole board member and make a decision (which ended in the parolee reoffending) or as a member of the public who read a story about the same parole decision and outcome. Findings suggest that the traditional actor-observer asymmetry emerged across blame and responsibility concepts, emotion and moral judgments. Overall, the public held harsher judgments than the mock parole board members. Implications regarding self-enhancement, methodology and attribution theory are discussed.