Evaluating the Due Process and Crime Control Perspectives Using Rasch Measurement Analysis
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: The biases jurors possess may influence everything from the interpretation of case evidence to impressions of the defendant to, ultimately, verdict and recognition of this has led to a number of juror attitude scales attempting to tap into important biases. A common ideology discussed in legal research is that individuals attitudes toward the law and the legal system differ along a continuum moving from due process (a concern for the preservation of individual rights) to crime control (a focus on swift and harsh punishment for those who break the law) although an agreed upon assessment of these perspectives has yet to be created.
Purpose: The current research addresses due process and crime control perspectives and uses the ideology as a source for a new measure of juror bias: The General Attitudes toward the Legal System (GALS) scale.
Setting: Not applicable.
Intervention: Not applicable.
Research Design: The GALS scale was constructed based on existing theory and administered to nearly 700 undergraduate psychology students at a large Midwestern university. The psychometric properties of the instrument were then evaluated to determine instrument quality.
Data Collection and Analysis: The Rasch Rating Scale Model (RRSM) was used to evaluate the psychometric properties of the GALS. Evaluation focused on six characteristics of the instrument: dimensionality, reliability, rating scale quality, item quality, item hierarchy, and measure quality.
Findings: Results indicate the GALS is a psychometrically sound instrument for measuring juror bias.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright and Permissions
Authors retain full copyright for articles published in JMDE. JMDE publishes under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY - NC 4.0). Users are allowed to copy, distribute, and transmit the work in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes, provided that the original authors and source are credited accurately and appropriately. Only the original authors may distribute the article for commercial or compensatory purposes. To view a copy of this license, visit creativecommons.org
References
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In D. Albarracin, B. Johnson & M. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 173-221). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43, 561-573. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02293814 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02293814
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch Model. Fundamental measurement in the human sciences, 2nd edition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
Butler, K., & Wrightsman, L. (2002, March). Attitudes toward law enforcement and mock jurors' reactions to an entrapment defense. Paper presented at the American Psychology and Law Society, Austin, TX.
Casper, J., Benedict, K., & Perry, J. (1989). Juror decision making, attitudes, and the hindsight bias. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 291-310. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067031 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067031
DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications (Vol. 26). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Field, H. (1978). Juror background characteristics and attitudes toward rape: Correlates of jurors' decisions in rape trials. Law and Human Behavior, 2, 73-93. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01040385 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01040385
Fitzgerald, R., & Ellsworth, P. (1984). Due process vs. crime control: Death qualification and jury attitudes. Law and Human Behavior, 8(1/2), 31-51. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044350 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044350
Hans, V., & Appel, A. (1999). The jury on trial. In W. Abbott & J. Batt (Eds.), A handbook of jury research. Philadelphia, PA: The American Law Institute.
Hastie, R., Penrod, S., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MS: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674865945 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674865945
Kaplan, M., & Kemmerick, G. (1974). Juror judgment as information integration: Combining evidential and nonevidential information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 493-499. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037034 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037034
Kaplan, J., & Miller, L. (1978). Reducing the effects of juror bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(12), 1433-1455. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.12.1443 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.36.12.1443
Karabatsos, G. (2000). A critique of Rasch residual fit statistics. Journal of Applied Measurement, 1, 152-176.
Kassin, S., & Wrightsman, L. (1983). The construction and validation of a juror bias scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 423-442. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(83)90070-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(83)90070-3
Kerlinger,F.(1984).Liberalismand conservatism: The nature and structure of social attitudes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kravitz, D., Cutler, B., & Brock, P. (1993). Reliabilityandvalidityoftheoriginal and reviesed Legal Attitudes Questionnaire. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 661-677. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044688 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044688
Lecci, L., & Myers, B. (2008). Individual differences in attitudes relevant to juror decision making: Development and validation of the Pretrial Juror Attitude Questionnaire (PJAQ). Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 2010-2038. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00378.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00378.x
Lieberman, J., & Sales, B. (2007). Scientific jury selection. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11498-000 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/11498-000
Linacre, J. M. (1999). Understanding Rasch measurement: estimation methods for Rasch measures. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 3(4), 382- 405.
Linacre, J. M. (2002). Understanding Rasch measurement: Optimal rating scale category effectiveness. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3, 85-106.
Linacre, J. M. (2010a). WINSTEPS® (Version 3.69.1). Computer Software. Beaverton, OR: Winsteps.com.
Linacre, J. M. (2010b). When to stop removing items and persons in Rasch analysis? Rasch Measurement Transactions, 23(4), 1241.
Liu, J., & Shure, G. (1993). Due process orientation does not always mean political liberalism. Law and Human Behavior, 17(3), 343-360. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044513 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044513
Lopez, W. "Communication validity and rating scales." Rasch Measurement Transactions, 10(1) (1996): 482-483.
Martin, T., & Cohn, E. (2004). Attitudes toward the criminal legal system: Scale development and predictors. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10(4), 367- 391. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160310001629265 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160310001629265
Messick, S. (1989). Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of assessment. Educational Researcher, 18(2), 5-11. https://doi.org/10.2307/1175249 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018002005
Moran, G., Cutler, B., & Loftus, E. (1990). Jury selection in major controlled substance trials: The need for extended voir dire. Forensic Reports, 3, 331-348.
Myers, B., & Lecci, L. (1998). Revising the factor structure of the Juror Bias Scale: A method for the empirical validation of theoretical constructs. Law and Human Behavior, 22(2), 239-256. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025798204956 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025798204956
Narby, D., Cutler, B., & Moran, G. (1993). A meta-analysis of the association between authoritarianism and jurors' perceptions of defendant culpability. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 78, 34-42. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.34 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.78.1.34
Ostrom, T., Saks, M., & Werner, C. (1978). An integration theory of analysis of jurors' presumptions of guilt or innocence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(4), 436-450. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.4.436 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.36.4.436
Packer, H. L. (1964). Two models of the criminal process. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 113(1), 1- 68. https://doi.org/10.2307/3310562 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3310562
Packer, H. L. (1968). The limits of the criminal sanction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804780797 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804780797
Thompson, W., Cowan, C., Ellsworth, P., & Harrington, J. (1984). Death penalty attitudes and conviction proneness: The translation of attitudes into verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 8(1/2), 95-114. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044353 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044353
Vidmar, N., & Schuller, R. (1989). Juries and expert evidence: Social framework testimony. Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 133-176. https://doi.org/10.2307/1191909 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1191909
Wright, B. D., & Linacre, J. M. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8, 370.
Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis: Rasch Measurement. Chicago: MESA Press. Wright, B. D., & Panchapakesan, N. (1969). A procedure for sample-free item analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 29, 23- 48. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446902900102 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446902900102
Wrightsman, L., & Schiffhauer, K. (1995, November). The measurement of attitudes toward the legal system: Unpublished paper. Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.