In a mock-trial study, jurors read evidence about a doctor who had killed a terminally ill patient at the patient’s request. We tested whether instructing jurors about jury nullification (ie jurors’ power to return a not-guilty verdict even when legal guilt is beyond doubt, often because the law would result in unjust convictions) would exacerbate the effect of pre-trial euthanasia attitudes on their verdicts – compared to standard, pattern jury instructions. We also hypothesized that anti-euthanasia pre-trial attitudes would result in moral outrage at the defendant and higher conviction rates, but pro-euthanasia attitudes would prompt feelings of moral outrage at the law and lower conviction rates. Moderated mediation analyses revealed that nullification instructions bolstered the effect of attitudes on verdicts by encouraging jurors to rely on their feelings of moral outrage toward the defendant. Jurors’ moral outrage toward the law mediated the effect of attitudes on verdicts regardless of nullification instructions.

在一项模拟审判研究中，陪审员宣读了一名医生应病人要求杀死一名绝症病人的证据。我们测试了指导陪审员关于陪审团无效（即陪审员有权返回无罪判决，即使法律上有罪是不容置疑的，通常是因为法律会导致不公正的定罪）是否会加剧审前安乐死态度对他们的影响。判决——与标准、模式陪审团指示相比。我们还假设，反安乐死的审前态度会导致被告的道德愤怒和更高的定罪率，但支持安乐死的态度会引发对法律的道德愤怒和更低的定罪率。有调节的调解分析显示，无效指令通过鼓励陪审员依靠对被告的道德愤怒感来增强态度对判决的影响。无论撤销指令如何，陪审员对法律的道德愤怒调节了态度对判决的影响。