If We Have a Voice, Will We Be Heard? Investigating the Impact of Jury Sentencing Recommendations Using Procedural Justice Theory

This research investigated the effectiveness of jury sentencing recommendations using elements of procedural justice theory. Jury sentencing recommendations are practiced in the United States of America and a reform has been proposed to implement jury sentencing recommendations in the Australian state of Victoria. Jury sentencing recommendations would involve juries in the sentencing of serious indictable offences by allowing them to recommend an appropriate minimum non-parole period to the Judge. Whilst the Judge would not be required to agree with (or hand down) the jury’s recommendation, they would be required to reveal it at the sentencing hearing alongside any reasons for disagreement. There is currently no known empirical evidence evaluating the effectiveness of jury sentencing recommendations. In line with procedural justice theory, the first study (N = 80) manipulated the presence of jury’s involvement in sentencing, as well as the punitiveness of the minimum non-parole period, to examine whether giving juries a “voice” – a key element of procedural justice – would have the intended effect of increasing public confidence in the courts, as well as perceptions of fairness and legitimacy. There was no evidence to suggest that giving juries a voice increases confidence or perceptions of fairness of legitimacy. However, there was some evidence to suggest that a more punitive sentence leads to increased perceptions of legitimacy, which is associated with higher confidence. The second study (N = 60) examined whether manipulating the Judge’s agreement with the jury’s recommendation, as well as the Judge’s reason for disagreement, would elicit the “frustration effect”, leading to a decrease in confidence and perceptions of fairness and legitimacy. There was no evidence to suggest that the frustration effect was present. Both studies suggest that jury sentencing recommendations may not be an effective method of increasing public confidence (or perceptions of fairness and legitimacy) in the courts. The current research highlights the need to empirically evaluate the effectiveness of legal reform and policy prior to implementation