Golding Jonathan M, Bradshaw Gregory S, Dunlap Emily E, Hodell Emily C
University of Kentucky, KY 40506-0044, USA.
Child Maltreat. 2007 May;12(2):182-90. doi: 10.1177/1077559506298995.
This study investigated how the gender composition of mock juries affects deliberations and conviction rates in a child sexual assault (CSA) trial. As opposed to studies in which mock jurors make decisions as individuals, mock jury research allows for investigation of how individual decisions translate into group verdicts. Gender composition within mock juries was varied to examine whether well-established gender differences in individual judgments affect the jury-level decision-making process. Three hundred men and women, in 6-member mock juries, heard a fictional CSA trial. During deliberations, proprosecution/ prodefense statements by women were approximately equal, whereas men made more prodefense statements. Women switched votes during deliberations more than did men; jurors in woman majority mock juries changed from not guilty to guilty more often than did jurors in nonwoman majority juries, and vice versa; and woman majority mock juries convicted most often. Findings indicate that predeliberation gender differences led to unique jury deliberation strategies and voting patterns.
本研究调查了模拟陪审团的性别构成如何影响儿童性侵犯（CSA）审判中的审议过程和定罪率。与模拟陪审员作为个体做出决定的研究不同，模拟陪审团研究能够考察个体决定如何转化为集体裁决。通过改变模拟陪审团中的性别构成，来检验个体判断中已确立的性别差异是否会影响陪审团层面的决策过程。300名男女参与了由6人组成的模拟陪审团，听取了一场虚构的CSA审判。在审议过程中，女性的支持检方/支持辩方陈述大致相等，而男性做出了更多支持辩方的陈述。女性在审议过程中比男性更多地改变投票；女性占多数的模拟陪审团中的陪审员从不 guilty 改为 guilty 的频率高于非女性占多数的陪审团中的陪审员，反之亦然；女性占多数的模拟陪审团定罪最为频繁。研究结果表明，审议前的性别差异导致了独特的陪审团审议策略和投票模式。
