Juror-defendant similarity and the assessment of guilt in politically motivated crimes

Abstract

This study examined the effect of political similarity between a defendant and simulated jurors on the subjects' assessment of guilt and recommendation of sentence in a political crime. Subjects read evidence presented at two political trials, one a terrorist bombing and the other a politically motivated burglary. In both crimes, the defendant was sometimes identified as a radical leftist and sometimes identified as a member of the radical right. Subjects then rendered verdicts, recommended sentences, and answered questions about their own beliefs. It was found that as objective similarity increased, the probability of finding the defendant guilty decreased in the political burglary (a crime in which there was no loss of life). This effect was not observed in the terrorist bombing (a crime in which there was loss of life). In both crimes there was a tendency for similarity to lead to more punitive sentences when the subject was convinced of the defendant's guilt.