ANALOGICAL REASONING BETWEEN THE CONCEPTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S PROCESS OF REACHING A VERDICT AND OF TESTING OF A STATISTICAL HYPOTHESIS SUGGESTED TWO HYPOTHESES: (1) THE MORE SEVERE THE PRESCRIBED PENALTY, THE MORE EVIDENCE REQUIRED FOR CONVICTION; AND THEREFORE (2) THE LOWER THE LIKELIHOOD OF CONVICTION. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE TENDED TO SUPPORT BOTH HYPOTHESES. IN THE PRESENT STUDY, THE THOMAS-HOGUE MODEL OF DECISIONMAKING BY INDIVIDUAL JURORS WAS USED IN A STUDY INVOLVING 449 UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS WHO REVIEWED WRITTEN CASE MATERIALS AND ANSWERED QUESTIONNAIRES. THE CASE SUMMARIES WERE IDENTICAL, BUT JUDGES' INSTRUCTIONS VARIED IN RELATION TO THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE CHARGES AND PENALTIES. RESULTS CONFIRMED BOTH THE PREDICITON THAT MORE EVIDENCE OF GUILT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR CONVICTION WHEN THE PRESCRIBED PENALTY WAS SEVERE AND THE PREDICTION THAT THE CONVICTION RATE FOR INDIVIDUAL MOCK JURORS WAS INVERSELY RELATED TO THE SEVERITY OF THE PRESCRIBED PENALTY. RESULTS SUGGESTED THAT INCREASING PENALTIES FOR CRIMINAL OFFENSES MAY LOWER THE PERCENTAGE OF CONVICTIONS FOR THOSE OFFENSES. FURTHER RESEARCH AIMED AT EXTERNAL VALIDATION OF THESE CONCLUSIONS AND EXAMINATION OF OTHER EFFECTS ON CONVICTION RATES IS RECOMMENDED. ONE TABLE, FOOTNOTES, REFERENCE NOTES, AND A REFERENCE LIST ARE INCLUDED. (CFW)