With theater, you have to be ready for anything: university response, expert testimony, and sample influence jurors’ decisions and counterfactual endorsement in a crime control theater case

Abstract

ABSTRACT Crime control theater (CCT) policies are adopted in response to public outcry for action and are widely accepted, but ineffective at reducing crime (e.g. Sex Offender Registration and Notification; SORN). The study examined the influence of a university’s SORN policy adherence (no/minimum/above & beyond), expert testimony on policy effectiveness (absent/present), and sample (student/community) on jurors’ decisions, counterfactual endorsement, and anger. Participants (N = 674) read a vignette in which parents sued a university for the wrongful death of their daughter by a registered sex offender. Greater counterfactual thinking (if the university had done more than different outcome) and likelihood of a liable verdict were expected when expert testimony was absent (greater belief SORN policy effectiveness), or university failed to adhere to the policy. University response and expert testimony had the expected effects on liability measures and counterfactual endorsement. Additionally, counterfactual endorsement was influenced by sample (greater community endorsement). Also, the community sample was less calibrated and more punitive in their decisions – increased liability judgments and damages. Counterfactual endorsement and/or anger mediated the effects of university response, expert testimony, and sample on liability measures and damages. These findings suggest that anger and counterfactual thinking are important mechanisms driving public support for CCT policies.