A mock juror investigation of the influence of extralegal factors of juvenile defendants: Gender, attractiveness, psychopathology, and race
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extralegal factors are those that do not pertain to the facts of a case in a court of law. In Canada, the youth criminal justice system incarcerates racialized youth, males, and those with psychiatric diagnoses at disproportionate rates. The mock juror paradigm is one way to investigate implicit biases arising from extralegal factors that might affect decisions such as guilt or innocence. Although jury trials are not used in the youth criminal justice system, a range of professions exercise judgment about whether youth enter the system and how far they progress in it; therefore, it is worthwhile to investigate extralegal factors that may give rise to implicit biases. This project included three studies, each investigating the effects of attractiveness and gender. Additionally, in Study One, a possible biasing effect for crime type (assault or fraud) was investigated; in Study Two the possibly biasing effect of psychiatric diagnosis (conduct disorder, psychopathic traits, schizophrenia, or no diagnosis) was also investigated; and in Study Three the biasing influence of race (Black or White) was investigated. Participants were female undergraduate students at the University of Windsor. Across the three studies, attractiveness and gender did not affect decision-making in isolation. Attractiveness and crime type were associated with higher guilt ratings for attractive defendants accused of assault. Attractiveness was associated with higher guilt ratings for attractive defendants with psychopathic traits and lower guilt ratings for attractive defendants with schizophrenia. Race did not interact with attractiveness or gender to produce biased guiltiness ratings. These results contribute to the body of mock juror research, particularly as it pertains to youth involved in the criminal justice system. With further methodological refinement, replication and extension of these findings are needed with representative samples of the jury eligible as well as those whose employment brings them into contact with youth at risk of involvement in the justice system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".