Premium
On Adhering to Judicial Instructions: Reactions of Dogmatic and Nondogmatic Juries to the Judge's Charge in an Entrapment Case 1
Author(s) -
Shaffer David R.,
Kerwin Jeffrey
Publication year - 1992
Publication title -
journal of applied social psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.822
H-Index - 111
eISSN - 1559-1816
pISSN - 0021-9029
DOI - 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00946.x
Subject(s) - entrapment , culpability , jury , psychology , officer , law , plea , charge (physics) , social psychology , political science , criminology , physics , quantum mechanics
Juries differing in dogmatism assessed the culpability of a defendant who had sold heroin to an undercover police officer and pled entrapment as his legal defense. The extenuating circumstances surrounding the drug sale provided either a reasonably compelling justification (high extenuating circumstances) or minimal justification (low extenuating circumstances) for an entrapment plea. Because of their alleged respect for and reliance on the pronouncements of authority figures, it was hypothesized that dogmatic juries would be more influenced than nondogmatic juries by the judge's charge about the meaning of entrapment (which, in this case, focused on the propriety of police conduct). Analyses of the jury deliberations, the decisions rendered, and postexperimental questionnaire data supported this hypothesis. Some implications of these outcomes are discussed.