The effects of deliberations and religious identity on mock jurors’ verdicts

Abstract

Jurors may be biased toward defendants because of their group status or similarities/differences. Deliberation may minimize bias by forcing jurors to rationalize their decisions. In two experiments, mock jurors read that, at the time of the crime, the defendant was: engaged in Christian prayers, Islamic prayers, or TV watching (control). Study 1 described a crime stereotypically associated with Muslims (bombing a transportation center); Study 2 used a crime associated with fundamentalist Christians (bombing an abortion clinic). Participants gave predeliberation and postdeliberation verdicts. Findings for both studies are similar, despite the stereotypicality of the crime. There was a general leniency effect—the more participants saw themselves as similar to the defendant, the less certain they were of guilt. Deliberation made jurors less likely to convict Muslim and Christian defendants, but not control-group defendants. Religious identity of the defendant had no direct effect on verdicts. Findings have implications for juror bias, crime stereotypicality, and the effects of jury deliberation.