Many people are guilty of being biased and can experience generic prejudice, especially when on jury duty. However, you don’t have to be a juror to experience this. There is generic prejudice even when just watching a trial on television, but that depends on what kind of a trial it is. For example, sexual abuse and homicide trials are the ones that seem to get the most attention. Those are especially difficult for jurors and it can be difficult to not be biased. For example, the moment we heard about a woman named Casey Anthony and her dead daughter, most of us said that she must be guilty of murdering her own child. We did this without listening to the facts of the case first. Personally, that is exactly what I thought (and still do). I don’t have children, but I used to work with kids, so I am protective.
Emotions can also be sparked during a homicide or sexual abuse case. We conclude right away that the person on trial must be guilty when it’s something so severe. This can be due to personal experience, or we know someone who went through that, we know a survivor, etc. In most cases, we are right to be biased and think that they must be guilty (which they are most of the time, I think), but there are cases where this would not be the truth. Sometimes there are people on trial who were accused of something so horrible, but end up being innocent. Generic prejudice can put an innocent person behind bars and it can make choosing the right jury a difficult task.
According to an article by Neil Vidmar, “Jurors do not approach the trial as empty receptacles who passively listen to the evidence and decide cases independently of their past experience, knowledge, and awareness of community norms” (Vidmar, 2003). Sexual abuse and homicide cases aren’t the only ones though. Generic prejudice also includes racism, which can affect someone of a different race/culture who is on trial. For example, many people established a negative view of Muslims after September 11th. Although only a particular group of muslims was responsible, an entire faith and people were punished for it. Completely innocent people who had nothing to do with the horrible tragedy that took place in 2001. “Research indicates that events that cause strong negative emotions, or that threaten people’s cultural world view, affect the way that these schemas operate” (Vidmar, 2003).
Basically, people who are racist or have strong views that they can’t put aside, would not make a great addition to a jury. A jury should be open minded and not have any strong views one way or another. If someone absolutely hates muslims, for example, and is supposed to be a juror on a case where an innocent muslim is being charged for a crime, how could they make sure that they give that person a fair trial? The same can be said if someone is accused of murder, and they are guilty, but a juror can’t find them guilty based on various reasons (same ethnicity, background, culture, etc.). It’s no wonder that selecting the right jury can take some time, but this is something to keep in mind if you are called in for jury duty.
References
Tags: Applied social psychology, criminal justice, generic prejudice, legal system
This is a pretty interesting topic for me, as I have a good deal of experience with serving on jury duty. I am not particularly a fan of the whole process, as I can think of many other things I’d rather do with my time than sit in a room all day waiting to possibly be called. Nevertheless, it is a civic duty, and at some point, all U.S. adult citizens will probably have that experience. The most important aspect of a juror is their impartiality. Impartiality is defined as having an attitudinal and a behavioral component that could potentially affect a juror’s verdict on a case. (Schneider et. al, 2012, Pg. 262) These impartialities can be considered biases that affect the way particular jurors perceive and respond to case variables. Prejudice is one of these biases that has been studied in great detail.
The ideal juror is one who is free from any internal or external biases. I can remember, during my most recent experience with jury duty all of the questions that I was asked as a potential juror. The questions were an attempt to identify any potential juror prejudice, and to eliminate individuals from the juror pool who exhibit those characteristics. There are 4 major types of juror prejudice; interest prejudice, specific prejudice, generic prejudice, and normative prejudice. Interest prejudice refers to the juror having a personal interest stake in the outcome of the trial. (Schneider et. al, 2012, Pg. 263) One question I was asked was did I know the defendant, or did I live in the area in which the crime took place. This helped to identify any jurors with interest prejudice. The second type of juror prejudice is specific prejudice, which holds that a potential juror may hold beliefs that prevent them from being impartial. (Schneider et. al, 2012, Pg. 263) The court asked questions about potential jurors knowledge of the case, which could skew the juror’s perceptions of the facts. The third kind of juror prejudice is generic prejudice. Generic prejudice refers to general attitudes that prevent an unbiased evaluation. (Schneider et. al, 2012, Pg. 263) These are mostly due to racist or stereotypical views, such as blacks are more likely to commit crimes, or police officers are corrupt. The final type of juror prejudice is normative prejudice, which refers to the idea that strong community sentiment supporting a case outcome, will bias the juror in favor of the community direction over the available evidence. (Schneider et. al, 2012, Pg. 263)
It is important for jurors to be impartial to the case they are sitting on. They must be able to ascertain the facts of the situation, and make a decision on innocence or guilt, based solely on the provided facts of the case. This, however, is not always possible as individuals are different, and have different individual biases. It is important to reduce or eliminate these biases in an effort to provide a fair trial for potential defendants.
Schneider, F.W., Gruman, J.A., & Coutts, L.A. (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems-2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.