People punish innocent group members for one member’s offense

Evidence

In some cases, however, social identity theory predicts harsher judgments for in-group members. For example, the “black sheep” hypothesis suggests that people will punish in-group members more harshly because their behavior reflects poorly on the in-group, and fellow in-group members will want to distance themselves from the in-group member who has committed a crime (Marques, Yzerbyt, & Leyens, 1988). The black sheep hypothesis has been tested in mock juror research, with mock jurors rendering harsher verdicts for in-group members when the evidence against them is strong as opposed to weak (Kerr et al., 1995). Furthermore, the need or desire to protect the in-group and punish the out-group may vary among different racial and ethnic groups. Some researchers maintain that similarity-leniency may actually provide a stronger impetus for minority jurors who could potentially be using jury verdicts as a method of protesting institutional discrimination (Hunt, 2015). — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 857 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: People excuse immorality from in-group members arbitrarily defined — Lee McIntyre, Post-Truth, 102; Expulsion edicts justified punishing an entire community for alleged crimes of a few.; Dominants delegate punitive violence to members of the targeted group (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Jurors punish in-group members harsher than outsiders when evidence is strong #complicates (0.72) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 857