Gender, Generations, and Guilt: Defendant Gender and Age Affect Jurors' Decisions and Perceptions in an Intimate Partner Homicide Trial.

Abstract

Using the context of an intimate partner homicide trial, the study explored the effects of defendant gender and age on mock-jurors' verdicts, sentences, and culpability ratings-and whether defendant credibility and juror anger mediate these effects. The study used a 2 (Defendant Gender: male vs. female) × 3 (Defendant Age: 25, 45, or 65 years) between-subjects design. Participants (N = 513 community members) completed the experiment online. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the six Defendant Gender × Age Conditions. Participants read the trial transcripts that included the age and gender manipulations, provided verdicts and sentences, and completed the following measures: culpability, anger, credibility, and manipulation checks. Consistent with our hypotheses mock-jurors were more likely to find the male defendant guilty and give him longer sentences than the female defendant. Additionally, when the defendant was male (vs. female) mock-jurors provided higher anger ratings and rated the defendant as more culpable in the victim's death. Also consistent with our hypotheses, mock-jurors were more likely to find the youngest defendant guilty and view him as more culpable and less credible than the oldest defendant. The mechanisms responsible for jurors' biased decisions varied as a function of the extra-legal variable (defendant gender vs. age). The defendant age effect was mediated by defendant credibility and the gender effect by juror anger. A defendant's right to a fair trial is dependent on a court's ability to limit extra-legal variables from influencing jurors' decisions. Understanding the mechanism responsible for such bias is required before the courts can effectively remedy bias.