2007Journal of Behavioral Decision MakingRequires access

Guilty, not guilty, or …? multiple options in jury verdict choices

Michael Smithson, Sara Deady, Lavinia Gracik

Open publisher page 46 citations

Abstract

Abstract Three studies investigate the role and impact of alternative verdicts to the conventional choice between conviction and acquittal. The primary focus is on the Not Proven option, with a lesser charge alternative included for comparisons. The results contradict a commonly held view that the Not Proven option attracts jurors away from returning a conviction. Instead, Not Proven more often supplants outright acquittals. Judged probabilities of guilt from jurors returning Not Proven are mid‐range, in contrast to the markedly higher probabilities given by those returning conviction of a lesser charge (manslaughter) and lower probabilities from those returning an acquittal. Jurors returning Not Proven report greater decisional difficulty and conflict than those returning any other verdict, including conviction on a lesser charge. No direct evidence is found that third options function as a decision‐avoidant alternative to conviction or acquittal. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Abstract Three studies investigate the role and impact of alternative verdicts to the conventional choice between conviction and acquittal. The primary focus is on the Not Proven option, with a lesser charge alternative included for comparisons. The results contradict a commonly held view that the Not Proven option attracts jurors away from returning a conviction. Instead, Not Proven more often supplants outright acquittals. Judged probabilities of guilt from jurors returning Not Proven are mid‐range, in contrast to the markedly higher probabilities given by those returning conviction of a lesser charge (manslaughter) and lower probabilities from those returning an acquittal. Jurors returning Not Proven report greater decisional difficulty and conflict than those returning any other verdict, including conviction on a lesser charge. No direct evidence is found that third options function as a decision‐avoidant alternative to conviction or acquittal. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 46 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Abstract Three studies investigate the role and impact of alternative verdicts to the conventional choice between conviction and acquittal. The primary focus is on the Not Proven option, with a lesser charge alternative included for comparisons. The results contradict a commonly held view that the Not Proven option attracts jurors away from returning a conviction. Instead, Not Proven more often supplants outright acquittals. Judged probabilities of guilt from jurors returning Not Proven are mid‐range, in contrast to the markedly higher probabilities given by those returning conviction of a lesser charge (manslaughter) and lower probabilities from those returning an acquittal. Jurors returning Not Proven report greater decisional difficulty and conflict than those returning any other verdict, including conviction on a lesser charge. No direct evidence is found that third options function as a decision‐avoidant alternative to conviction or acquittal. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Key concepts: Acquittal, Conviction, Verdict, Jury, Psychology, Law, Criminology, Political science

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Guilty, not guilty, or …? multiple options in jury verdict choices — Research Paper | ScholarLens