Dealing with Jury Bias

The criminal justice system is critical to any society. The criminal justice system seeks to impose penalties on offenders according to the applicable laws (Maculan & Gil Gil, 2020). In other words, it is through it that offenders are identified and prosecuted. Individuals can either be pronounced guilty or innocent. The process is a rigorous one to ensure that innocent parties are not convicted while at the same time not freeing guilty individuals. This can be a delicate balance since it is not always easy to conclude. There is always a need to obtain credible information from different sources to enable the jury to decide. Social psychology entails analyzing human behavior and can provide a significant source of information to facilitate fairness in the criminal justice system (Stangor, Jhangiani & Tarry, 2014). Social psychology is needed to explain how personal characteristics can influence the decision of the jury or the judge.

An understanding of criminal behavior involves applying social psychology in the criminal justice system. Social psychologists can answer fundamental questions that can assist in the investigation (Gruman et al., 2017). For instance, they could determine the situational factors that might have influenced the crime. Through social psychology, one can determine how the personal characteristics of the parties involved can influence the decisions made by the jury. Despite the need for juries to remain objective, interactions of social psychology can be observed in the decision-making process.

The jury decision-making is affected by the interactions of the jury with society. Jury verdicts are given much weight because the community members render them as opposed to the decisions made by a single judge. Jury members must always remain impartial and stay free from any preconceived biases that may make it challenging to render a fair decision (Williams, 2018). Despite jurors seeking to remain neutral, social psychology demonstrates that the nature of the case could affect their impartiality. In particular, certain crimes like murder and sexual abuse increase the likelihood of the offender being held guilty even when it was imprudent to do it. In such cases, generic prejudice may interfere with the decisions of the jurors. For instance, racist views would interfere with the unbiased evaluation of the matter at hand and subject the offender to unfair treatment (Gruman et al., 2017). The jurors develop a form of bias against the offender; hence they lean more on the nature of the crime committed than the facts of the matter.

Conclusively, it is critical to appreciate that biases may occur, especially where the case involves murder or sexual abuse. Juries may not exercise their mental independence and consider the applicable law. They may instead be biased against the individual and make decisions that are detrimental to the offender. The criminal justice system is a rigorous system to ensure that innocent parties are not convicted. Despite the thorough process of selecting the jury, social psychology asserts that the jury decision-making process may be affected by the panel’s interactions with themselves and the offenders. It is crucial to appreciate that such biases may work against offenders, who receive longer sentences.

 

 

References

Maculan, E., & Gil Gil, A. (2020). The Rationale and Purposes of Criminal Law and Punishment    in Transitional Contexts. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies40(1), 132-157.

Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., & Coutts, L. M. (2017). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. SAGE.

Stangor, C., Jhangiani, R., & Tarry, H. (2014). Principles of social psychology. BCcampus.

Williams Jr, S. P. (2018). Double-blind justice: A scientific solution to criminal bias in the        courtroom. Ind. JL & Soc. Equal.6, 48.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 comments

  1. We all know the importance of the jury’s judgment in court cases, but in some extreme cases, if the jury members try with personal bias or emotion, the problem of deviation in the final result will exist, While trying to avoid collective behavior affecting individual decision-making, we should also pay attention to the jury’s personal emotional problems, so as not to cause trial deviation.

    Reference
    Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., & Coutts, L. M. (2017). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. SAGE.

  2. I agree that it is important to acknowledge the influence jury bias may have in the courtroom. Juries play such an important role in deciding whether or not there is enough evidence to convict someone, and bias may compromise their ability to interpret the facts fairly. However, trying to eliminate bias by addressing it directly can be difficult. They often work on an unconscious level, meaning that someone may not even be fully aware that they hold certain attitudes against certain people. Thus, I would argue that the jury’s decision-making process should be specifically designed to reduce the influence jury bias may have on the final ruling.
    The main idea of a jury is that 6-12 perspectives is better than just 1 perspective. One person’s extreme viewpoint may be averaged or even canceled out among everyone else’s viewpoints. Of course, this only works when everyone in the group is actively pitching in their ideas and avoiding groupthink. As discussed by Gruman, Schneider, & Coutts (2017), groupthink is where members of a decision-making group give in to the pressure of just going along with everyone else instead of carefully considering alternatives (pg. 278). When groupthink occurs, the group is no longer mixing everyone’s perspectives but rather going along with few perspectives while the others silence themselves. In a jury setting, this may lead to someone’s bias having a disproportionate impact on the jury’s ruling. Thus, the system needs to be designed to discourage groupthink as much as possible, such as by encouraging jury members to carefully consider all of the facts and courses of action (Gruman et al., 2017, pg. 278) or designating a “devil’s advocate” who argues against the group’s ideas to introduce new viewpoints into the discussion (MacDougall & Baum, 1997). By ensuring that juries avoid groupthink by seriously considering many different perspectives on a case, the jury system can work at its maximum potential to look beyond personal biases and make sure that justice has been delivered.

    Reference

    Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., & Coutts, L. M. (2017). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. Los Angeles: SAGE.
    MacDougall, C., & Baum, F. (1997). The Devil’s Advocate: A Strategy to Avoid Groupthink and Stimulate Discussion in Focus Groups. Qualitative Health Research, 7(4), 532–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239700700407

Leave a Reply


Skip to toolbar