Will It Hurt Me In Court? Effects of weapon and gender on jurors

[willbrink]

This is an interesting paper that looks at the effects of types of weapons used, gender effects, and interactions between them, and the effects on jurors. Good info for all gun owners (especially women who use an evil black rifle for SD it would appear...), LEO, and lawyers to read:

Will It Hurt Me in Court?
Weapons Issues and the Fears of the Legally Armed Citizen
by Glenn Meyer

Weapons-related Factors and Gender Can Influence Jury Decisions



Researchers have concluded weapons presence can influence legal proceedings through jurors' evaluation of motives (Berkowitz & LePage, 1967). Dienstbier, Roesch, Mizumoto, Hemenover, Lott, and Carlo (1998) found with increased weapon salience, due to more direct exposure, mock jurors attributed more guilt and assigned longer sentences to the gun user - in that case an armed burglar. Females gave longer sentences and were more affected by weapons exposure.




Cont:

Will It Hurt Me In Court?

 

[belercous]

If I was charged with a gun crime I'd prefer males over females, rural over urban/suburban denizens, older rather than younger citizens on my jury. Or, although unlikely, a panel of young, inner-city, male thugs/felons. Ya know, the kind of people who give guns a bad name.

Of course, it depends on what the charge was and the surrounding circumstances.

 

[Zoogster]

This specific study is also based on perspectives held in the 1990s, when anti-gun laws were rapidly being passed. Certain perspectives are different pertaining to weapons and use of force in much of the nation now.
It also includes some data from previous decades, when gender roles and stereotypes were much stronger and more reinforced in the upbringing of men and women. Making the results much more consistent.

The same people who would judge a burglar (armed home invader) harshly as in the example are not always the same people who would judge a self defense scenario that was questionable (according to the prosecutor's version of events) harshly, or even other crimes.


An armed burglar also tends to illicit an extra feeling of violation, especially in a woman (who are typically naturally nesters). The place someone wants and expects to feel safe, invaded by a stronger armed intruder. Such a situation is certain to trigger a strong resentment as the female jury member imagines themselves in that situation. An even stronger resentment than in many male jury members.
So using an armed burglar certainly generates a very different outcome than many other potential situations.


There is many other situations where the results are the opposite, where female jurors are much more lenient or more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt or a second chance to the criminal than their male counterparts.
A clear cut home invasion as used as the example in this study is simply not one of them.


Real life experience and observations actually shows females are far more likely to be given the benefit of the doubt after using force, both lethal and non-lethal. Even examples of force that would be excessive force for a male are often overlooked.
Responding male officers who write the reports (most law enforcement is male) and male jury members are typically more sympathetic and protective of females than they would be towards other males.
So a female shooter who shoots an unarmed man on the street who she feels threatened by for example typically has consequences far less severe than a male who did something similar.
Females are typically presumed to be victims unless circumstances clearly show otherwise, and this works greatly in their favor.
The legal system is also far more lenient on women in general, even those who are criminals. For example the percent of women given life without parole or the death penalty is tiny compared to men for similar crimes.
They tend to get shorter sentences and more frequent parole for the same crimes.