Social Psychology refers to the branch of psychology that deals with analyzing the human behaviors based on the interactions with others in society as well as the social contexts of the conduct. Simply, it deals with how people act or behave according to their social interactions. On the other hand, the criminal justice system is the branch of the law that deals with controlling criminal activities in society through imposing penalties on the offenders of the specific laws. The following article seeks to analyze how the social psychology plays a role in the criminal justice system. In specific, I will examine how the social psychology influences the jury decision making.
Criminal justice system plays a critical role in every society. It identifies the particular offenders, arrest them prosecute them and adjudge them either guilty or innocent for conviction. Nonetheless, it entails a very delicate process to avoid convicting innocent parties. The judge of the jury has the mandate to ensure that the offenders are punished accordingly to the law and their offenses without disregarding their inherent fundamental rights and freedoms as human beings. Consequently, the criminal justice system entails a rigorous process. In the United States, the role of determining whether an individual is guilty or innocent of a crime lies with the jury. The jury selection entails a very rigorous process of selecting persons of utmost integrity and irrevocable rationale for rendering independent and sober determinations. Nonetheless, as social psychologists assert the process of jury decision-making is one that is significantly affected by the social interactions of the jury with either themselves or the society. In the subsequent paragraphs, I will discuss how the social interactions influence the jury decision-making.
According to various commentators like Asch, the size of the jury greatly influences the outcome of their decision (Asch). Indeed, he asserts that the less the number of jurors the more the likelihood of an outcome against the defendant. In contrast, where the number of jurors is high the defendant stands a position of getting some favors from the jurors. Ordinarily, the size of the jury ranges from 6 to 12 members. As Asch opines a jury of six persons has a high probability of entering a vote of guilty to a person even if he or she is guilty (Asch). Indeed, he asserts that the jurors seem to enter a unanimous decision with no one dissenting. On the other hand, a jury of 12 jurors has significantly high possibility of multiple dissentment from the members. One of the reasoning behind the occurrence is that in a small-sized jury, a person will be afraid of going against the majority and thus conforming to their decisions (Asch). However, where a jury comprises of 12 jurors, the probability of two or three persons exercising their independence of mind is very high.
Furthermore, quite often the jury outcomes are highly determined by the type of case. According to commentators, certain types of crimes such as murder and sexual offenses result to the offender being held guilty even if it is imprudent to do so (Fiedler and Joseph ). One of the principal arguments for the position is the fact that such cases generate some generic prejudice against the accused persons (Fiedler and Joseph ). Consequently, the jurors acquire some form of bias against the individual. Subsequently, their minds tend to lean more to the nature of the crime as opposed to the facts of the case and the applicable law. They simply do not exercise any form of mental independence. Besides, the situation is explained based on the cognitive theory, which proposes that a human mind under stress tends to have a reduced rational decision-making. Frequently, these types of cases tend to elicit a lot of publicity and following and hence, the resulting pressure on the jurors.
In summary, the interactions of the social psychology are very evident in the jury decision-making as discussed above. In particular, the interplay occurs in relationship to the size of the jury and the nature of the case under determination.
Works Cited
Asch, Solomon E. “Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments.” Groups, leadership, and men. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press, 1951. Print.
Fiedler, Fred E, and E Garcia Joseph. New approaches to effective leadership: Cognitive resources and organizational performance. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1987. Print.