Advertisement

Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 241–252 | Cite as

A Third Verdict Option: Exploring the Impact of the Not Proven Verdict on Mock Juror Decision Making

  • Lorraine HopeEmail author
  • Edith Greene
  • Amina Memon
  • Melanie Gavisk
  • Kate Houston
Original Article

Abstract

In most adversarial systems, jurors in criminal cases consider the binary verdict alternatives of “Guilty” and “Not guilty.” However, in some circumstances and jurisdictions, a third verdict option is available: Not Proven. The Not Proven verdict essentially reflects the view that the defendant is indeed culpable, but that the prosecution has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Like a Not Guilty verdict, the Not Proven verdict results in an acquittal. The main aim of the two studies reported here was to determine how, and under what circumstances, jurors opt to use the Not Proven verdict across different case types and when the strength of the evidence varies. In both studies, jurors were more likely to choose a Not Proven verdict over a Not Guilty verdict when the alternative was available. When evidence against the defendant was only moderately strong and a Not Proven verdict option was available (Study 2), there was also a significant reduction in the conviction rate. Results also showed that understanding of the Not Proven verdict was poor, highlighting inadequacies in the nature of judicial instructions relating to this verdict.

Keywords

Jury decision making Not proven verdict Alternative verdict option 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Jane Anderson and Yvonne Adams for their assistance in collecting, collating and coding the data for Study 1. We also wish to thank the Editor and a number of anonymous reviewers for their constructive, comprehensive and thoughtful comments, which contributed significantly to the completion of our manuscript.

References

  1. Ainsworth, B. (1995). Anti-crime politicians quick to exploit verdict. Recorder, p. 14.Google Scholar
  2. Barbato, J. M. (2005). Scotland’s Bastard Verdict: Intermediacy and the unique three-verdict system. Indiana International & Comparative Law Review, 15, 543–581.Google Scholar
  3. Barrett, D. (2006). £5m cut from miscarriage of justice payments. The Independent. Retrieved December 15, 2006 from http://www.news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article358655.ece
  4. Blunt, L., & Stock, H. (1985). Guilty but mentally ill: An alternative verdict. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 3, 49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borum, R., & Fulero, S. (1999). Empirical research on the insanity defense and attempted reforms: Evidence toward informed policy. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 375–394.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. British Broadcasting Corporation (1993). Not Proven: “That Bastard Verdict” (BBC Scotland television broadcast, Focal Point Documentary).Google Scholar
  8. Cassens, M. D., & Curriden, M. (1994). Prove it. American Bar Association Journal, 80, 42.Google Scholar
  9. Chernev, A. (2004). Extremeness aversion and attribute-balance effects in choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 249–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, J. (1988). Stastistical power analyses for the behavioural sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Connelly, C. (1999). Courts. In P. Duff & N. Hutton (Eds.), Criminal justice in Scotland (pp. 146–165). Aldershot, England: Dartmouth Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Dhar, R., Nowlis, S. M., & Sherman, S. J. (2000). Trying hard or hardly trying: An analysis of context effects in choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9, 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doyle, J. R., O’Connor, D. J., Reynolds, G. M., & Bottomley, P. A. (1999). The robustness of the asymmetrically dominated effect: Buying frames, phantom alternatives, and in-store purchases. Psychology & Marketing, 16, 225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duff, P. (1996). The Not Proven verdict: Jury mythology and ‘moral panics’. Juridical Review, 1, 1–12.Google Scholar
  16. Duff, P. (1999). The Scottish Criminal Jury: A very peculiar institution. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62, 173–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grofman, B. (1985). The effect of restricted and unrestricted verdict options on juror choice. Social Science Research, 14, 195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hastie, R., Penrod, S. D., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Highhouse, S. (1996). Context-dependent selection: The effects of decoy and phantom job candidates. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65, 68–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kaplan, M., & Krupa, S. (1986). Severe penalties under the control of others can reduce guilt verdicts. Law and Psychology Review, 10, 1–18.Google Scholar
  22. Kaplan, J., & Simon, R. (1972). Latitude of severity of sentencing options, race of the victim, and decisions of simulated jurors: Some issues arising from the “Algiers Motel” trial. Law and Society Review, 7, 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kim, S., & Hasher, L. (2005). The attraction effect in decision making: Superior performance by older adults. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 120–133.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kivetz, R., Netzer, O., Srinivasan, V. (2004). Alternative models for capturing the compromise effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 41, 237–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Koch, C., & Devine, D. (1999). Effects of reasonable doubt definitions and inclusion of a lesser charge on jury verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 653–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Larntz, K. (1975). Reanalysis of Vidmar’s data on the effects of decision alternatives on verdicts of simulated jurors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 123–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Macaskill, M. (2005). ‘Not Proven’ verdict faces European test. Sunday Times. Retrieved November 23, 2006 from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2090-1442773,00.html
  28. MacCoun, R. J., & Kerr, N. L. (1988). Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: Jurors’ bias for leniency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 21–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. MacDonald v. HM Advocate, 1989 S.L.T. 289; 1989 S.C.C.R. 29, 323F.Google Scholar
  30. McKenzie, J. P. (1985). The Editorial Notebook; Between guilt and innocence. New York Times, A28.Google Scholar
  31. Myers, B., Rosol, A., & Boelter, E. (2003). Polygraph evidence and juror judgments: The effects of corroborating evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 948–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pan, Y., O’Curry, S., & Pitts, R. E. (1995). The attraction effect and political choice in two elections. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4, 85–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Robey, A. (1978). Guilty but mentally ill. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 6, 374–381.Google Scholar
  34. Scottish Office (1994). Juries and Verdicts: Report on improving the delivery of justice in Scotland. Scottish Office.Google Scholar
  35. Scottish Executive (2006). Criminal proceedings in Scottish courts: Statistical Bulletin: CrJ/ 2006/3. Retrieved December 12, 2006 from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/04/25104019/11
  36. Sedikides, C., Ariely, D., & Olsen, N. (1999). Contextual and procedural determinants of partner selection: Of asymmetric dominance and prominence. Social Cognition, 17, 118–139.Google Scholar
  37. Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons – the case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 158–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Simonson, I., Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context – tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 281–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Studebaker, C. A., Robbennolt, J. K., Penrod, S. D., Pathak-Sharma, M. K., Groscup, J. L., & Devenport, J. L. (2002). Studying pretrial publicity effects: New methods for testing and improving external validity. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 19–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vidmar, N. (1972). Effects of decision alternatives on the verdicts and social perceptions of simulated jurors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22, 211–218.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. United States v. Merlino, 310 F.3d 137, 144 3rd Cir. (2002).Google Scholar
  42. Wilson, L., Greene, E., & Loftus, E. F. (1986). Beliefs about forensic hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 34, 110–121.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lorraine Hope
    • 1
    Email author
  • Edith Greene
    • 2
  • Amina Memon
    • 4
  • Melanie Gavisk
    • 3
  • Kate Houston
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of PortsmouthPortsmouthUK
  2. 2.School of PsychologyUniversity of ColoradoColorado SpringsUSA
  3. 3.School of LawUniversity of ColoradoColorado SpringsUSA
  4. 4.School of PsychologyUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations