Horowitz Irwin A, Kerr Norbert L, Park Ernest S, Gockel Christine
Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331-4501, USA.
Law Hum Behav. 2006 Apr;30(2):163-81. doi: 10.1007/s10979-006-9028-x.
A widespread presumption in the law is that giving jurors nullification instructions would result in "chaos"-jurors guided not by law but by their emotions and personal biases. We propose a model of juror nullification that posits an interaction between the nature of the trial (viz. whether the fairness of the law is at issue), nullification instructions, and emotional biases on juror decision-making. Mock jurors considered a trial online which varied the presence a nullification instructions, whether the trial raised issues of the law's fairness (murder for profit vs. euthanasia), and emotionally biasing information (that affected jurors' liking for the victim). Only when jurors were in receipt of nullification instructions in a nullification-relevant trial were they sensitive to emotionally biasing information. Emotional biases did not affect evidence processing but did affect emotional reactions and verdicts, providing the strongest support to date for the chaos theory.
法律界普遍的一种假设是，向陪审员提供废止法律的指示会导致“混乱”——陪审员不是受法律指引，而是受其情感和个人偏见左右。我们提出了一种陪审员废止法律的模型，该模型假定审判的性质（即法律的公正性是否存在争议）、废止法律的指示以及情感偏见对陪审员决策的影响之间存在相互作用。模拟陪审员在线审议了一场审判，该审判在是否存在废止法律的指示、是否引发法律公正性问题（为获利而谋杀与安乐死）以及情感偏向信息（影响陪审员对受害者的喜爱程度）方面有所不同。只有当陪审员在与废止法律相关的审判中收到废止法律的指示时，他们才会对情感偏向信息敏感。情感偏见并不影响证据处理，但确实会影响情感反应和裁决，这为混乱理论提供了迄今为止最有力的支持。
