Note: I am going to try to remain impartial, my goal is to discuss perceptions of the criminal justice system not guilt. I know many people (including myself) have strong opinions about this case and that’s the point. How do our opinions, which are made on highly biased information, change our perceptions of the criminal justice system?
Right to a fair trial
The 6th amendment states that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”(“Bill of Rights”)
Does the criminal justice system actually follow these rights? The short answer is that yes, the criminal justice system follows these basic tenets. However modern technology and the 24 hour news cycle has made many of the “inalienable rights” difficult to provide.
The innocence movement, fueled by the fairly recent implementation of DNA testing in criminal cases has led many citizens to doubt the criminal justice system (Battaglia, 2012). It is easy enough for the average law abiding citizen to decide that a criminal “got what they deserved” but when a person is exonerated by DNA evidence after many years in jail, people lose faith. That person who sat in jail, knowing they were innocent could be them, what if they too were caught in the wrong place at the wrong time?
The opposite often happens as well. The court of public opinion can be quick to come to a verdict and unwavering regardless of additional evidence. The Casey Anthony case is a notable case where the public has formed much different opinions than the justice system.
The Media
The Casey Anthony Case was heavily publicized on mainstream media. When 2 Year old Caylee Anthony first was reported missing on July, 15 2008 (30 days after she was last seen) the media went on attack. Casey Anthony was immediately blamed for being a bad mother and the public quickly formed an opinion that she was guilty. The “smell of death” in her car, Casey’ s apparent confusion about when she had last seen her daughter and pictures of Casey partying during the investigation certainly didn’t help things. By October, she was charged with murder and in December Caylee Anthony’s remains were found (Ashton, Pulitzer 2012). Each of these events, the investigation, the arrest, and the discovery of remains was played on the media almost constantly. The trial, also highly publicized, started in May of 2011 and ended in July, 2011.
Many who followed the media frenzy were shocked by her acquittal, she was found not guilty of the murder charges. While the trial was going on, I had a 1 hour commute. I often listened to Court TV on my satellite radio. I remember listening when the verdict was announced. Gasps could be heard from all around the courtroom. Everyone was shocked. Many people felt that she was wrongfully exonerated and cited the failings of the criminal justice system.
This heavy media coverage of the case likely had many implications on the defendant, the jury and the criminal justice system itself.
The Defendant
This is a well-known but not often considered aspect of “trial by media”. When a defendant in a criminal case is given a not guilty verdict that should be it. They are not guilty, they should be able to merge back into society without repercussions. However in highly publicized cases where the criminal verdict does not match the verdict handed down by the court of public opinion, the defendant can face death threats and attacks. The defendant can also expect constant media coverage and public scrutiny. It is often hard for them to find jobs and they may have lost everything they owned if they sat in jail for a long period of time awaiting trial. Sometimes, the principals of self-verification theory can even drive the individual to attempt to justify their actions to the public which often ends in disaster. Defense attorneys often find themselves struggling to change the public perception of their client as well as convince the jury that their client is not guilty (Battaglia, 2012). Approximately 1 out of 6 people exonerated for a crime end up back in prison for smaller offenses (Look at OJ Simpson for an example). In cases where the exonerated party ends up back in prison, public opinion formed during their previous case can cause bias in their current case (Battaglia, 2012). Overall it is going to be difficult for the so called “wrongfully exonerated “ individual to blend back into society and mend relationships with family members, they may struggle with personal and social identity and find it difficult to capture who they once were before the trial.
The Jury
We have previously been speaking of the jury of public opinion. In this section, the jury refers to the actual jurors in the case. In the Casey Anthony case, there was a period of several years between the discovery of a missing child (Caylee Anthony) and the trial. This gave plenty of time for the media to fully saturate public opinion. Of course the jury selection process is designed to eliminate those that have strong opinions or large amounts of knowledge about the case but when a case is this highly publicized it is difficult to avoid bias. In particular one caution of the jury selection process was the awareness of normative prejudice (Schneider, et. al, 2012). The effect of normative prejudice causes people to make the decision that they think others would want them to make. Many jurors have come out after the Casey Anthony trial and stated they had a difficult time making a decision because they knew they were going against public opinion. In fact the sole strategy of Anthony’s attorney was to provide reasonable doubt because he knew prejudices such as normative prejudice would likely lose him the case. He simply introduced several different theories and conflicting pieces of evidence in order to provide the basis for doubt (Ashton, Pulitzer 2012). Jurors can also face some of the same social stigma and alienation experienced by the defendant if their identity is released by the public. Jurors may have a hard time reconciling their personal and social identity with the public’s perceptions of them. They may also struggle with self-verification and feel the need to justify their actions to the media.
The Criminal Justice System
Overall, the factors that surround a “wrongful exoneration” effect the criminal justice system the most. The stigma that is attached to the defendant is often attached to the criminal justice system as well. In the eyes of the media consumer, the criminal justice system has failed. This perceived failure can cause future jurors to be less reliable of they become distrustful of the criminal justice system. These wrongful exonerations along with the wrongful convictions that have been publicized add to the public distrust of the system. The media in general is often critical of at least some part of the trial. It could be the judge or the jury or the lawyers but either way it colors people’s future interactions with the justice system in general (Battaglia, 2012). We have many notable cases where this publicly perceived failure has happened and even have TV shows dedicated to the topic (Making a Murder). In the end this will only further hurt a criminal justice system that some believe is already crumbling.
Ashton, J., & Pulitzer, L. (2012). Imperfect justice: prosecuting Casey Anthony. New York: William Morrow.
Battaglia, N. A. (2012, Spring). The Casey Anthony trial and wrongful exonerations: how “trial by media” cases diminish public confidence in the criminal justice system. Albany Law Review, 75(3), 1579+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/ps/i.do?p=LT&sw=w&u=carl39591&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA297426813&sid=summon&asid=c0ee8bc16f7eb8bd78b34cbeccde99ea
Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., and Coutts, L. M. (Eds.) (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. ISBN 978-1412976381
Socia, K. M., & Brown, E. K. (2016). “This Isn’t About Casey Anthony Anymore”. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 27(4), 348-377. doi:10.1177/0887403414551000
The Bill of Rights: A Transcription. (n.d.). Retrieved March 01, 2017, from https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript#toc-amendment-vi
Hey!
Thank you for posting on your blog. I enjoyed reading your report.
Social influence refers to the idea that interactions with other people can lead to changes in our attitudes, beliefs, values, and behavior (Schneider, 2012). Various social and behavioral components play a role in society. Conformity is a passive type of social influence through which an individual or group modifies their behaviors or beliefs toward a group norm in order to match those of others within the group (Constable, 1999). As a result, they join that group in which they share similar beliefs and social aspects. This type of transition does not typically result from the prevalence of coercive persuasion from another individual, as compliance typically does. Alternatively, compliance is adhering to the demands to change one’s actions surrounding a collective standard of behavior. For compliance, group members will modify their behavior in order to fit in with a particular group or norm within society at the request of another person in order to achieve a specific task (Constable, 1999). The court of public opinion can be influenced by these social and behavior factors. Specifically, individuals may desire to conform toward a particular group manifesting a similar set of beliefs.
Moreover, the public opinion may sway how individuals or groups feel about a controversial issue or political topic through it being heavily publicized through the media. Overall, the formation of strong opinions among perceptions manifested by the public can greatly influence components, such as highly broadcasted news stories or court cases. Opinions are formed merely from highly biased information that may be influenced by interactions with other people. It is irrational how much the majority of public opinion can influence something as powerful as the criminal justice system. As you stated in your report, it is difficult to avoid biases in certain criminal cases – several of the jurors have indicated that they had a difficult time making a decision because they knew they were going against the vast perceptions of the community. Do you think jurors follow the public’s overbearing opinions in most cases, or do you think most of them make their own decisions regardless of what the public believes? This particular issue in the court of law is a matter of normative prejudice, as you mentioned, in which people make a decision that they think others would want them to make. Additionally, it is also a problem related to whether or not jurors or the public feel the need or desire to comply or conform to what everyone else is telling them to believe.
The media has an overbearing influence on manipulating the opinions of individuals within a society. Generally, the media is biased meaning that we should remember to not always believe everything that we hear. I am informed, but I do not know a sufficient amount of detail regarding Casey Anthony’s case. A while ago, I remember watching and listening to several programs that involved her trial, and I thought that she was guilty (and still kind of do). Although, I am not entirely certain and I would need to conduct more research to provide a holistic opinion regarding her criminal accusations. Essentially, I feel that everyone should do that before abruptly stating their opinion without researching in-depth about why they are completely confident in their answer. Deceitful information is constantly portrayed through the media which misconstrues how people feel about particular areas of interest or concern. As a result, the criminal justice system has been doubted by individuals who are typically misinformed, or the public perceiving that the jury implemented discerning convictions that went against their beliefs. Consequentially, its disappointed how often the public will sometimes become enraged if others do not conform to their beliefs because they expect them to, or they will behave in rebellious ways to coerce others to change to their way of thinking.
Conclusively, individuals are entitled to their opinion, but they should be open to hearing others opinions regarding certain matters and politely inform them about legitimate, honest facts if necessary and asked for. In conclusion, the justice system should not be coercively swayed by the public’s opinion as others should try not to do to each other, unless they are rightfully informed on a particular issue. EVERYONE is entitled to their own opinion on an issue, and they should not aggressively voice their opinions in a way that provokes violence (such as inappropriate death threats toward Casey Anthony as you mentioned in this case). How can we prevent the system from crumbling even more? What are your ideas for implicating change in the media and criminal justice system?
Again, thank you for your report on the Casey Anthony incident. Also, I enjoyed reading your thorough explanations regarding various social influences within the criminal justice system. I appreciated the effort you took to write your post!
Kendall Eimers
APA Citations
Conformity, compliance, and obedience. Retrieved March 3, 2017, from https://www.units.miamioh.edu/psybersite/cults/cco.shtml
Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (Eds.). (2012). Applied Social Psychology (Second ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hello!
I enjoyed reading your blog post! I couldn’t agree with you more. As a matter of fact, my blog post kind of coincides with some of what you are speaking about. I blogged about whether I would be able to be selected for jury duty due to generic prejudice. I used the highly publicized media coverage of the Casey Anthony trial as an example of where I realized that I have generic prejudices based on the nature of the crime and not all the facts. Because of everything we were seeing and hearing on the news, which we know was not all the facts, I had very emotionally charged prejudices towards her. I realized as a mother of three young children myself, I would have generic prejudice in any murder or sexual assault trial involving children.
The integrity of the criminal justice system has been called into question over the years because of wrongfully convicted or wrongfully exonerated cases but also because of the 24hr news cycles that puts so many incidences and trials into the court of public opinion. It would be such a daunting task to be able to find unbiased jurors for a case such as Casey Anthony’s after the news media saturation.
You make a lot of great points on the stigma of the “crumbling” system. What could be some possible solutions to help restore the integrity of our criminal justice system I wonder? Thank you for your blog post!
-Shea