Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
Legal system-The Jury
The jury is extremely pivotal to the criminal justice system and to the rights of the people and the individuals. The integral role takes place when the jury chooses the individual(s) culpability and blame in a situation. There are various cases that juries deliberate which vary from civil cases where compensation may be found to be warranted such as a tenant didn’t pay their rent and therefore should be held accountable, as well as larger cases where individuals are hurt or killed and therefore accountability is the focus . Our criminal justice system believes in defending the innocent and therefore believes that it’s more humane to allow a guilty person to be free than to imprison an individual who doesn’t have proof beyond a “reasonable doubt” (Shapiro, 2011).
The jury consists of between 6 or 12 individuals usually from the same community and is chosen randomly by enumeration lists and/or voter registration lists to be present for jury duty (Schneider, Gruman & Coutts, 2012). The choosing of a juror can take many days up to weeks to find the “right” juror. There are a series of questions asked about prior knowledge of the cases so that bias doesn’t occur. In some cases, the less number of jurors who serve can actually lower the period between when the case may actually be tried and it consequently prompts the trial to begin quickly. Once a juror is selected, they are paid a “wage” for each day that they are there, subsequently missing work if the trial goes on for more than a day or so.
While I found the Asch study quite interesting, the opposite may occur as well. Take the movie Twelve Angry Men, for instance. In this movie, it was quite the opposite whereas there was only one person who wasn’t “conforming to the incorrect decision” and throughout the movie, tried to persuade the other jurors to look more carefully and consider all of the evidence. From this evidence, it is unlikely that what occurred would have happened in Twelve Angry Men, however, with every vote which changed from guilty to not guilty, the jury seemed to really examine each piece of the evidence. This movie used schemas and stereotyping when swaying the juror’s rationality because many of the jurors thought that kids who were raised in the slums and who were part of a certain minority were “ up to no good” and therefore it was easy to see blame the boy through internal attributions even though there was evidence to the contrary. This was perfect example of “generic prejudice” whereas the racist views of the jurors obstructed an unbiased assessment (Schneider, et al. 2012). Some of the jurors felt that kids didn’t show respect. During one of the beginning scenes, there was a re-count of who thought the boy was guilty versus not guilty and the older gentleman actually viewed the room to see the way that other people were choosing. Henry Fonda, the only juror who at the beginning said that he wasn’t sure if the boy was guilty wanted to have a confidential and unidentified vote indicated that not just Henry Fonda’s character was unsure. This is definitely a must-see in my opinion if you have never seen it.
The most integral component to the prosecution is to prove fault and responsibility “beyond a reasonable doubt” which is really tough to do with 100% confidence and no uncertainty .What occurs when what the individual is charged with doesn’t fit the criteria and so while they are guilty, they are guilty of a different offense and therefore serve a much smaller charge or just get found “not guilty” for that particular crime. A perfect example was the Casey Anthony trial because many felt that the blame should have been centered on the prosecution as to why Anthony received an acquittal (Shapiro, 2011). This is a perfect example of trying to charge a higher and harder degree of murder, first-degree murder when they clearly didn’t have the evidence. While they knew certain information such as Anthony’s many lies and lack of reporting Caylee missing, there was little proven evidence of intention. This trial included the death penalty and questions to jurors included questions as to if they believed in the death penalty and if so, could they convict someone else and put them to death. When a juror may have to send someone to death, jurors need more evidence, unconsciously. What should have taken place was that Anthony would have pleaded to a reduced charge such as a felony. What I didn’t realize is that with a capital murder case, there is no possibility of a plea. Holes were created throughout the trial which lead to there being almost no possible way to have 100% certainty that she was guilty. I can still remember the verdict and feeling a pit in my heart and stomach. Just writing this blog made me emotional because I just remember her sweet face everywhere. While it was a heartbreaking decision, it really was the verdict that should have been passed down, taking away the emotional side, in my opinion. How would you have voted emotionally? Now, what did you think was the right verdict, emotion aside?
The courtroom is the setting for trials in our legal system and where many social processes occur including “group decision making, attributions, and the social influence.” (Schneider et al., 2012). The pertinent awareness as to in what way the jurors contemplate and choose to determine the evidence and the behavior associated with each trial. How does a jury not use emotion in decisions? Well, emotion is an unconscious feeling at times and can inevitably decide a case, but there are clear directions reminded by judges to uphold the law and find without a doubt a decision to find an individual guilt or not guilty. I believe this is one of the hardest decisions a juror has to make because it affects real life individuals!
References
Fonda, H. (Producer), & Lumet, S. (Director). (1957). 12 angry men [Motion picture]. United States of America: Orion-Nova Productions.
Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (Eds.) (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Shapiro, Robert L. (2011). In Casey Anthony’s case, the law worked. Los Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/09/opinion/la-oe-shapiro-caylee-anthony-20110709