The question I am posing today is whether or not we can ever have a truly fair and equal criminal justice system. Throughout every step of the process (arrest, courts, punishment) there is some sort of bias or discretion that can be made wherein affecting the outcome of the case. Psychology plays a huge role in every step of the criminal justice process as we will see. The criminal justice process starts first when a crime has been committed. Unfortunately, from the very beginning of the process, things can be misconstrued. When a crime has been committed in the presence of other people, bystanders are of little help. People experience the “. . . diffusion of responsibility (i.e., the diminished sense of responsibility a person feels when he or she believes that others would or should intervene)” (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012, p. 247). That being said, it is very difficult of a bystander to be a good witness when he/she believes that someone else will “step up to the plate.”
The next step of the process is when the police begin their investigation of the crime. Unfortunately, discrimination plays a huge role as to who the police officer decides to monitor and/or investigate. Our text describes a process similar to this; “. . . in-group/out-group bias, which means that in-group members tend to evaluate and relate to the in-group favorably and to the out-group less favorably (or unfavorably)” (Schneider et al., 2010, p. 7). Examples of this can include White officers allowing more Whites to get away with minor crimes, while at the same time prosecuting more ethnic offenders for the same offenses. It has been shown that minorities get arrested more often, and are penalized more heavily than Whites (Gabbidon & Greene, 2013).
The next step of the process is that of the court, or the trial. At first, during jury selection, discrimination is also present. Much like a coach of a sports team, prosecutors are allowed to ‘bench’ or toss out any juror during a process called voir dire (Neubauer & Fradella, 2014). However, this process is also a crucial one when trying to avoid anyone with a preexisting prejudice. Our text “. . . defined partiality in much the same way a social psychologist would, that is, as having an attitudinal (i.e., prejudicial) and a behavioral (i.e., discriminatory) component that could potentially affect a verdict on a case” (Schneider et al., 2010, p. 262). During the court process, the fundamental attribution error is also present. This is where the court makes the assumption that the crime was committed due to external factors. It is often overlooked that there may be internal reasons affecting the defendant’s behavior.
During the court process, there are many variables that can affect the outcome of the case. When looking at witnesses, some are coerced into telling a story, or may have been in such a fluster during the events where they may have imagined certain aspects or completely omitted others. Evidence may be presented during trial, but may not be accepted by the judge. We cannot stop this from biasing the jury. They may create a “. . . self-fulfilling prophecy, that is, the way in which a person’s expectations can influence his or her own and others’ behaviors in a way that will confirm to the person’s beliefs” (Schneider et al., 2010, p. 255). Ultimately, we may never know what exactly happened during a crime; it is rare that the defendant will tell their story in its entirety, leaving the jury to make the final decision as to what happened. As frustrating as it is, the victim is sometimes not able to be in court to tell their version of the story.
Works Cited
Gabbidon, S. L., & Greene, H. T. (2013). Race and Crime. Sage Publications, Inc.
Neubauer, D. W., & Fradella, H. F. (2014). America’s Courts and the Criminal Justice System. Belmont: Cengage Learning.
Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems. Los Angeles: Sage Publications, Inc.
I enjoyed reading your post and I think you bring to light some critical issues regarding injustices. As you made mention, there are countless variables that attribute to challenges that exist within the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system remains a target in society’s lines of scrutiny. Inequities seem to continually present themselves in almost every high-profile criminal case streamed in the news today. Most of these inequities seem to result from multiple variables, as you pointed out, that directly relate to social issues and psychologically driven aspects. A recent, on-going case, which immediately comes to mind, is that of (former) General David Petraeus. In a recent article released by Business Insider, General Petraeus is reported as reaching a plea deal, “General David Petraeus has agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge for mishandling classified information” (Bender, 2015). As an individual who has served over 20 years in the Marine Corps, I can attest to the inequities surrounding this case. If the individual on the defendant stand were almost anyone other than a decorated general they would be looking at life in prison. Countless individuals have been charged and tried for lessor and have received life in prison. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the General’s infidelities, (although the lessor of the criminals acts) are chargeable and punishable, and they are not even being addressed in this case. The mishandling of classified information is one that is not taken lightly. We are able to quickly recall the cases of Edward Snowden, PFC Bradley Manning, and LtCol Benjamin Bishop who are/were convicted/are awaiting trial for similar criminal acts and are facing or have faced far more extreme punishments. Why are there such inequalities in our justice system? Our text discusses social inequalities based on low socioeconomic standards, lack of education, lower social class, etc. (Schneider, et al., 2012) I challenge that we examine this from a different social psychology perspective. Do some people, because of their high social stature, education, socioeconomic status, act in criminal ways because they think they are above the law? As stated in our text I concur that in addition to personal characteristics, that environment and situational events also act as determinants of criminal behavior. I think that the case of General Petraeus is a perfect example of the injustices that exist in our criminal justice system. Your post touched on defining partiality and the fundamental attribution error; these are variables that I would suggest could also be applied in the case of General Petraeus. How do we, as a society overcome such injustices? Based on applying social psychology theories to this example, I think it is imperative that we examine the some of the contributing variables, more effective ways in which investigations are conducted, line of questioning practices are employed, and courtroom proceedings are held to achieve a more equitable judicial process. A very interesting and informative post.
Works Cited:
Bender, J. (2015, March 3). General David Petraeus to plead guilty to providing classified information to his mistress. Retrieved March 8, 2015, from http://www.businessinsider.com/petraeus-reached-plea-deal-2015-3?op=1
Schneider, F., Gruman, J. & Coutts, L. (2012). Applied social psychology: understanding and addressing social and practical problems. Los Angeles: Sage.
This is such a difficult topic for me as I tend to be one of those people who just think – “why can’t we all just follow the law?” You brought up a great deal of variables which present ways in which the system could become flawed, but I believe that there is a wide set of variables that we as a society use which could lead to unfairness and create flaws within the system.
I believe that as a society we attempt to explain and attempt to find a “why” for bad things happening. We tend to look the variable surrounding the situation and look for an explanation for behavior. This could be a rather in-depth discussion as to the many reasons something could happen, but I found the idea of proximal variables and distal variables to be quite interesting. Proximal variables are those events which happened close to the time of the event while distal variables are those which occurred in the past which could be related to the event somehow (Schneider, Gruman, and Coutts, 2012).
I think sociologically we must look at the variables which led up to and occurred during the event in order to prevent future events from occurring and also look at this as a societal problem rather than individualistic. We must look at what proximal and distal variables were there and see what can be changed to prevent similar situations from occurring in the future. Yes, this is absolutely a tedious and challenging task and almost an unrealistic one. However, in looking at the topics which you presented along with the general concept of your post, the injustices and inequalities within our criminal law system also relate to the variables surrounding the situations. What proximal and distal variables and experiences do the witnesses have which prevent them from saying anything? What variables play a part in the jury and their ability to make a decision – did they grow up in high crime areas?
I really enjoyed reading your post and found it to be an interesting and informative perspective on the criminal justice system. There are many circumstances in which this system could be flawed, and the variables and context which the person is in can lead to these situations. We all tend to look for the “why” and “what led to” and many times these variables are what we truly need to be looking at when approaching the criminal justice system and its potential inequalities.
References
Schneider, F., Gruman, J. & Coutts, L. (2012). Applied social psychology: understanding and addressing social and practical problems. Los Angeles: Sage.