A Proposal And Test Of A Rating Scale For Genetic Evidence Comprehension

• In Event: Biosocial Research on Criminal Justice Outcomes

Abstract

A new form of evidence is entering courtroom proceedings: gene-specific evidence. Presently, over 200 cases have attempted to enter genetic evidence as either a mitigating or an aggravating factor. Little is understood about how jurors consider this evidence despite the direct impact it may have on defendants, although the body of research is growing. All mock jury research thus far has not observed a direct effect of genetic evidence on charge or sentencing decision. This calls to question jurors' perceptions of defendant culpability when gene-specific evidence is provided. This study proposed and tests a polytomous scale for jurors’ perceptions of defendant culpability when gene specific evidence is entered in the guilt phase of a trial. Items were created based on three claims: jurors understand implications of genetics in courtroom proceedings, jurors believe genetics evidence affects antisocial behaviors, and jurors use genetics evidence in decision making about guilt. It was hypothesized that the three claims will load on three different factors. Exploratory factor analyses (EFA) were used to first explore the dimensionality; confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were used to confirm the dimensionality of the scale. The present study collected responses from community members using Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk).

Authors

• Elise Costa, University of Florida

• Margaret Pate, Radford University