Are juveniles getting a fair trial?, the jury is still out

grantor: University of TorontoWith the progression to more adult-like policies and procedures for youth in the justice system, the right to a jury trial has been extended to young offenders. These youth would not be tried by a jury of their peers, however, but by a jury of adults. The concern is that adult jurors may hold negative attitudes about youth that might influence their decision making in a case involving a young defendant. Two studies examined whether and under what conditions defendant age affects jurors' decisions about the guilt and sentencing of an accused. In Study 1, data were gathered from two samples of jury eligible adults: one university sample and one public sample. Mock jurors read written transcripts of a trial involving a defendant who was presented as either 13, 17, or 25 years of age. Results indicated that the defendant's age had no effect on mock jurors' verdict or their ratings of defendant guilt. However, those who read the case of the 13-year-old defendant were more likely to recommend shorter sentences compared to participants in the 17- and 25-year-old defendant conditions. This supports the notion that adults may be more lenient with younger adolescents than with older adolescents or adults with regard to sentencing but not conviction. Mock juror attitudes were related to trial outcomes such that adults who held more legally conservative views tended to convict the defendant more often, regardless of his age. Furthermore, people's attitudes about young offenders were related to their sentencing of the defendant, but this effect did not interact with the defendant's age. In Study 2, mock jurors read the same trial presented in Study 1 but were asked to deliberate about the case and render group verdicts. These group verdicts did not differ significantly by defendant age. Age related themes that emerged from group deliberations were identified, and results indicated that age tended to be used as a mitigating factor in favour of youth rather than against them. These findings are discussed in terms of their implications for youth justice policy and practice.Ph.D