Other research that is relevant here but not directly linked to age is that of Grifitt & Jackson (1973). They found that jurors saw defendants with different attitudes to them, for example, regarding racial integration, as guiltier, gave them longer, more severe sentences and generally judged them as less favourable than defendants with similar attitudes. It is possible that similar attitudes do not necessarily correlate with similar ages between juror and defendant however.
Research into gender has also proven particularly deficient (Frazier & Hunt, 1998). Studies exist that assess juror and defendant gender but relatively few have focused on the relationship between the two. Research into defendant gender alone is scarce.
However, Dane & Wrightsman (1992) examined decision making in homicide of spouses and found that jurors were more likely to convict a defendant of the same sex. In studies involving sexual assaults, Foley (1993), Kanekar & Vaz (1983) and Key, Warren & Ross (1996) all found that females were more likely to convict male defendants than their male peers were and indeed, render much harsher sentences.
Finn & Stalans (1997), Nagel & Johnson (1994) found that female offenders receive more lenient sentencing than males for similar offences. Polk (1993) found that females who murdered their children were treated less harshly than males. These findings clearly highlight the need for further research on gender and sentencing.
Steffensmeier, Ulmer & Kramer (1998) attributed sentencing disparity to Focal Concern Theory and, in particular 3 types that frame judicial decisions:
1. Blameworthiness – sanctions are based on conventional, consensus-based legal factors ie. offence severity, circumstances, offender’s possible active/passive role in the offence, prior criminal history and any mitigating factors, such as prior victimisation.
2. Protection of the Community – a desire to incapacitate the offender and punish him/her to deter others. Blameworthiness factors are also considered here together with offender attributes that may be indicative of social bonds, for example, employment, marital status, education.
3. Practical Constraints and Consequences – Individual limitations such as offender attributes that may decrease the defendant’s ability to serve time, for example, their health, disruptions of family, age particularly if elderly.
Does the jury adopt a “perceptual shorthand” when assessing the offender for sentencing? Do age, gender and perhaps race even influence the juries’ perception of community protection as suggested by Steffensmeier et al (1998). Seeing defendants as a threat simply because of their age or gender brings in extra-legal discriminatory biases into sentencing (Weinrath, 2007). Extra-legal factors or “participant characteristics” according to Devine, Clayton, Dunford, Seying & Price (2001) “have no probative value and should not influence jury verdicts” Much research however found these factors can potentially affect the decisions made by jurors (Dane & Wrightsman, 1982).
Very young offenders may in fact be awarded more lenient sentences given that they are seen to have little life experience and poor parental supervision therefore making them less blameworthy. Conversely, young adults in the 18 – 40 age group having had a chance to mature may be seen as more criminal. The blameworthiness of an older adult of 60 plus may be lessened by having a greater chance to accrue employment experience or marital bonds. Older offenders are typically seen as not so much a threat to society, especially when elderly. Also, elderly offenders may have health problems that require consideration. Steffensmeier et al state that there is few empirical research that test age effects in sentencing.
Steffensmeier et al (1998) found that judicial decisions were heavily based on factors of age, gender, and race. Focal Concerns Theory also highlights more lenient sentencing, particularly for female offenders. Females are seen as less of a threat and less likely to re-offend. They may have family commitments that are often taken into consideration prior to sentencing and, prior victimisation may even be seen as mitigating circumstances.
Focal Concerns Theory gives greater prominence to age as a conditioning factor in sentencing. Steffensmeier & Motivans (2000) found that more lenient sentencing also extends to the elderly population in judicial decisions. This is, according to Steffensmeier & Motivans a much neglected area of research into sentencing severity.
METHOD
Participants
Participants will consist of 240 jury eligible members of the local community. All participants will be volunteers recruited from local primary schools and colleges, shopping centres and local clubs and associations. Participants are to be approached and asked whether they wish to volunteer to read a trial case and give judgements on the severity of sentence as if they were jurors. Participants are required to be registered voters and ages will range from 18 to 77 years.
Design
This study will utilise a 2 (age) x 2 (gender) between subjects factorial design. The four conditions of the experiment are as follows:-
Young woman (age 22)
Old woman (age 65)
Young man (age 22)
Old man (age 65)
The independent variables are the age and gender of the defendant. In each condition participants are asked to indicate the severity of punishment they would award the defendant. The dependent variable is the severity of punishment. Participants are asked to indicate the sentence that they would recommend for the defendant. The recommended sentence ranges from “1” for a jail term of 1 year or less, to the maximum sentence of “7” for a life sentence. This sentencing scale has been used in previous research (Forsterlee et al., 1999).
Participants will be divided into 5 groups of 12 for each condition. This is representative of the number of jurors in a real jury.
Materials
Participants are to be given a description of a violent assault, in which the victim later dies from serious injuries, for each of the 4 conditions as stated previously. The severity of the assault is to be kept constant throughout each condition.
Procedure
Each participant will be randomly assigned to one of the 4 experimental conditions. All participants regardless of condition will read identical descriptions of the assault with the replacement of either male/female, young/old as appropriate.
Participants are initially asked to sign a consent form having been given full details of the nature of the experiment. All participants are to be made aware that neither the assault nor the victim/assailant is real. Participants will be assured of absolute confidentiality at all times and will be free to leave the experiment at any time.
After reading the description of the assault, participants will be asked to make their judgements on the severity of sentence for the defendant. Participants will then be thanked and debriefed and advised of how they might obtain a summary of the research findings.
RESULTS
The research aims to test whether age and/or gender are influencing factors on the severity of the sentence given to the defendant. The 4 conditions of the study, as previously stated are 1) a young female defendant; 2) an old female defendant; 3) a young male defendant; and 4) an old male defendant.
It is expected that age will influence the juror’s decisions whereby the younger defendants will receive a harsher sentence than the older defendants. Further, it is anticipated that female defendants will receive less harsh sentences than their male counterparts. The hypothesis is therefore two-fold:-
1) Younger defendants will receive a more severe sentence than the older defendants; and
2) Male defendants will receive a more severe sentence than the female defendants.
It is anticipated that the young male will receive the harshest sentence of the four with the old woman receiving the least severe sentence.
A 2 (age) x 2 (gender) analysis of variance will be performed on each independent variable (ANOVA) to test whether there is a significant effect on sentencing based on the age and gender of the defendant.
CONCLUSION
This research aims to assess whether age and gender are contributing factors in the decision making process for jurors. Age and gender are personal characteristics and should, in no way have any bearing or influence on how a jury reaches a decision regarding sentencing the defendant. This, however, is not always the case and, as previous, albeit scant, research has shown, age and gender do in fact play an often more important role in sentencing than seriousness of crime or previous offences.
Established guidelines are in place to provide a basis for sentencing but it is the interpretation of these guidelines that allow for the disparity in sentencing across the board.
This research seeks to redress the balance and lack of research into age and gender as contributing factors of sentencing.
According to Tutt and Giller (1989)(cited in Stephenson 1992), the prison system is no place for young people. With our already over-crowded prisons, it is perhaps prudent that further research be carried out in this area and, with greater co-operation between the police, social service, the courts and probation services; our younger members of society can be spared the harsh reality of a custodial sentence.
The research aims to sample 240 members of the local community and ask them to participate in a mock jury. The participants will be aware from the outset that this is purely fictional and no such case or crime exists. At no such time will the participants be deluded or duped. They will be well briefed prior to the study commencing and fully debriefed thereafter. This format caused initial concern about how “true to life” the study will be given that the participants are to be in full possession of the facts. It is felt however that although the participants will know the study is not real, their gut reaction toward sentencing will still be evident in their decisions.
The participants will be asked to read a description of an assault in which the victim later dies from injuries. They are then asked to decide on the severity of sentence the defendant in each condition should be given.
It is believed that the sample, whilst large, will provide a fully representative sample of the wider population. It is acknowledged however that this will be one of the main practical challenges prior to the study. Also, participants will be divided into 5 groups of 12 for each condition. Whilst participants will not be making joint decisions, it is felt necessary to make it as real as possible for the study.
This research will not only add to the somewhat limited body of research that already exists in the United Kingdom, it will focus on only two factors, age and gender, both of which are personal characteristics of the defendant. With there being no other variables involved to test, it is hoped that a clearer picture of sentencing severity based on age and gender be produced. It is hoped that the wider implications of this research may, in fact, impact on the number of young males in our prison system today and help provide a much needed set of stringent guidelines on sentencing severity.
REFERENCES
Bergeron, C.E., & McKelvie, S.J. (2004) “Effects of Defendant Age on Severity of Punishment for Different Crimes”: The Journal of Social Psychology, 144(1), 75 – 90
Faulkner G.L., & Steffensmeier D.J. (1979) “Effects of defendant’s sex and age status on severity of punishment: An experimental test” Psychological Reports, 45, 917-918
Finn, M.A., & Stalans, L.J. (1997) “The influence of gender and mental state on police decisions in domestic assault cases”, Criminal Justice & Behaviour, 24, 157-176
Forsterlee, L, Fox, G.B, Forsterlee, R., & Ho, R. (1999) “The effects of a victim impact statement and gender on juror information processing in a criminal trial: Does punishment fit the crime?”, Australian Psychologist, March 2004: 39(1): 57-67
Higgins, P.L., Heath, W.P., & Grannemann, B.D, (2004) “How Type of Excuse Defense, Mock Juror Age, and Defendant Age Affect Mock Juror’s Decisions”: The Journal of Social Psychology, 147(4), 371 – 392
Loeffler, R.L., & Lawson, T.J. (2002) “Age and Occupational Status of Defendant in Relation to Mock Juror Sentencing Recommendations”: Current Psychology, 2002. Vol. 21, No. 3
Steffensmeier, D.J., Ulmer, J., & Kramer, J. (1998) “The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing” Criminology, 36, 763 – 798
Steffensmeier, D.J., & Motivans, M. (2000), “Older men and older women in the arms of criminal law: Offending patterns and sentencing outcomes” Journal of Gerontology, 55, 141 – 151
Stephenson, G.M., (1992) “The Psychology of Criminal Justice”: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford
Weinrath, M. (2007) “Sentencing Disparity: Aboriginal Canadians, Drunk Driving and Age”, Western Criminology Review 8(2) 16 – 28
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/prisoct03.pdf - accessed November 26, 2007 at 1613 hrs.
Cited in Higgins, Heath & Grannemann (2004)
Cited in Higgins, Heath & Grannemann (2004)
Cited in Bergeron & McKelvie (2004)
Cited in Higgins et al (2004)
Cited in Higgins et al (2004)
Cited in Forsterlee, Fox, Forsterlee, Ho (1999)
Cited in Forsterlee et al (1999)
Cited in Forsterlee et al (1999)
Cited in Forsterlee et al (1999)
Cited in Forsterlee et al (1999)
Cited in Higgins et al (2004)