|
Affiliation
|
College of Science and Engineering, The School of Psychology, The University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK. |
|
Abstract
|
Cognitive bias is an umbrella term used to explain subjective perceptions of people, objects and/or events that deviate from a normative framework [1]. Biases are normally created through an interaction of heuristics (cognitive short-cuts [2]; with world experiences [3]. Assessing the prevalence, impact and type of cognitive bias on decision making in different parts of the justice system should be prioritised to ensure continued trust in the system [4].
Juror decision making and their perceptions of forensic evidence
Due to the weight of responsibility placed on jurors, any factors which impact their decisions are, understandably, of particular interest. For example, our understanding of the impact of racial biases [5], rape myths [6], and gender biases relating to defendants, victims and expert witnesses [7,8] on jurors have been markedly improved by a wealth of rigorous and experimentally valid research. More recently, Curley and colleagues have studied the processes through which jurors form their judgements and make their final verdict [[6], [9]]. Forensic psychology, legal research and now decision science research are making joint headway in understanding the impact of biases on the decisions made at each stage of the legal process.
Jurors place different weight on different types of evidence presented to them. Forensic evidence (evidence obtained using scientific methods such as fingerprints, blood splatter, bite mark or DNA analysis) is typically weighted strongly by juries [10]. Lynch [10] suggests that DNA evidence is presently viewed as the current ‘gold standard’ in relation to the evidence presented in court. Briody [11] determined that the likelihood of a conviction after DNA evidence was presented to a jury was much higher than without DNA evidence. The convicted criminals themselves put a strong emphasis on DNA evidence when considering the dangers of committing a crime. Prainsack and Kitzberger [12] interviewed criminals to determine their views on DNA and other forensic evidence. These criminals believed that it was impossible not to leave a DNA fingerprint at a crime scene, and that DNA evidence is both impenetrable and intimidating due to the scientific rigour applied by an expert when interpreting the evidence. Furthermore, evidence provided by a forensic science laboratory, despite being circumstantial, is seen as strong, important and influential by legal laypersons when making decisions ...
Language: en |