Include contemporary examples ( within the last 10 years ) of ethnicity-based jury nullification. Note: you can use news articles ]…
Prosecutors are not supposed to select certain gender, race or age for the jury selection. The important for the plaintiff and the defendant is to have jurors who are not in favor of any involved parties. In cases were a lawsuit involves significant amount of money, the voir dire has become extra complicated over time, so now attorneys use skilled jury selection services to help them pick analytical data to select the perfect jurors. Attorneys think with the option of selecting professional jurors can help their clients win cases. Critics complain, this special jury selection services provide an unfair help to the other party, who cannot afford the cost of the…
A maintenance role that is notable within the group is an Encourager of Participation. This role is filled by juror number eight. Throughout the movie, he encourages everyone to give their opinion on the case. He listens and demonstrates a level of openness to the ideas of others. Juror number eight is also responsive to the other jurors.…
In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, Juror 4 undergoes a series of questions regarding his confidence that a young man is guilty of murder. From the beginning to the end of the play, Juror 4 gradually changes his mind about his initial vote, through the constructive discussions lead by Juror 8. Juror 4 moves from a belief that all legal witnesses are faultless to truly experiencing some sort of “reasonable doubt.” He is left with a clearer picture of the case, looking beyond his personal prejudices and biases.…
Juror 8 simply puts out questions and asks people to challenge their own beliefs. He is prepared to allow anyone to keep their own opinion without compromising his own.…
Twelve Angry Men is a very successful literary work even without everything that makes a good play. There are 12 main characters whose names are never said, stuck in a single room discussing the life of a man the reader knows nothing about. There is still a large amount of character development, which allows us to learn a lot about the jurors. Even though the trial is not in the play, the reader is able to figure out all the key points from it. While the entire play takes place in one room, the author is able to transform that room and allow all the necessary actions for the play to occur.…
Juries represent the ordinary public and therefore are more likely to judge in line with generally accepted values of the society. Justice and equity are the standards of an eligible jury, and the jury selection is meant to ensure “counterbalancing of biases” or canceling out individual biases (Hastie, Penrod & Pennington, 1983). However, jury trials are often vulnerable to the effects of prejudice and stereotypes of the jury, by geographical or historical factors, and it tend to be harmful to certain groups. For example, juror characteristics, such as gender, religion, education level, socio-economic status (Hastie et al., 1983; Wrighstman, Kassim & Willis, 1987), and racial prejudices (Urszbat, 2005). And attorneys’ intonation, posture, attractiveness, confidence, and credibility also affect juries’ perception and their judgments (Jakubaszek, 2014). Most significant, the characteristics of defendants like gender and age would affect jury decision making (Pazzulo, Dempsey, Meader & Allen, 2010). These prejudices and stereotypes cause in-group-out-group bias during the trial process. In-group bias means in-group favoritism that refers to the fact that under certain conditions people will preference and have an affinity for one’s in-group over the out-group, or anyone viewed as outside the in-group. It is usually expressed in one 's evaluation of others, linking, allocation of resources and many other ways (Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D. & Akert, R. D., 2009). And out-group bias is the phenomenon in which an out-group is perceived as being threatening to the members of an in-group ( Hewstone, M.; Rubin, M.; Willis, H., 2002) defined as out-group derogation. It is a matter of favoritism towards an in-group and the absence of equivalent favoritism towards an out-group (Brewers, Marilynn B., 1999). Outgroup derogation often…
I would have to say that it depends on the eye witness. A human being has been proven to sometimes see things that are not actually there and believe things that never happened. The emotions that we have make us susceptible to having our perceptions skewed and out senses tricked. There's also the issue of someone lying for personal gain. That being said, I wouldn't say that eye witness testimony isn't reliable, but it can't be seen as infallible and should be able to hold up to a certain amount of scrutiny.…
The American jury system, wherein citizens are judged by their peers, is one of the most democratic in the world. Nonetheless our system is far from perfect. There are many dangers in a system in which humans are asked to make decisions that could mean life or death for another person. Bias ranks amongst these dangers for it can affect the way jurors interpret testimonies and facts. Indifference is another factor; it too, can heavily affect a juror’s thinking. Personal feelings and experiences can stand in between a juror and the attainment of truth. The American jury system is intrinsically flawed in that it relies on intrinsically flawed humans to make life or death decisions…
Part of what makes a jury so fair is that not just anyone may be selected for jury duty. However, these limitations do not include pertain to race, gender, or social status, they in fact remain as anonymous as they could possibly be with numbers replacing names, and contact to outside sources limited for the sake of conducting an unbiased jury trial. Attorneys are extremely critical when deciding who will partake in a jury. Those chosen must not have any outside contact or any knowledge whatsoever of any person involved in the trial or there is the possibility of a biased vote. As much as possible, lawyers try to choose a well-rounded jury that consists of people from many different fields of work and backgrounds so as to have as many different perspectives as possible. For instance, if a psychologist were on a jury, they could offer a very in-depth perception of those on trial. Also those with a lot of different personal life experiences can usually compare those experiences and use them to benefit their decision…
The lifetime exclusion of felons from jury service is the majority rule in the U.S., used in thirty one states and in federal courts. The result is that over 6% of the adult population is excluded, including about 30% of black men,[2] creating a class of citizens defined and punished by the criminal justice system but unable to impact its function. Felon jury exclusion is less visible than felony disenfranchisement, and few socio-legal scholars have challenged the statutes that withhold a convicted felon’s opportunity to sit on a jury.[3] While constitutional challenges to felon jury exclusion almost always originate from interested litigants, some scholars contend that "it is the interests of the excluded felons that are most directly implicated." Yet, attacks on these blanket prohibitions levied by excluded felon jurors have failed consistently. The United States Supreme Court does not recognize the right to sit on a jury as fundamental.[4] It has been pointed out that, although lawmakers assert that felon jury exclusion measures protect the integrity of the adjudicative process, as felons “lack the requisite probity” to serve on a jury and are “inherently biased,” many of…
“Look up in the sky, it a bird, it a plane,” no it’s a drone delivering your Summons for Jury Duty. No, relax, Jury Summons are not being delivered by drones yet. However, just imagine the reaction of people if they were. Their first response would probably be to find an excuse to get out of it. But little do they know, our future depends on good and honest people providing service by making an informed decision. Serving as a juror is extremely important. For example, it is our civic duty, it gives the defendant a fair trial, it provides knowledge on how the court system operates, and it is one of the few constitutional obligations.…
My thoughts on my early morning experience during jury duty selection-I noticed a few elements of successful teaching. The judge was very explicit in explaining the judicial process for selecting a jury, and in explaining the process for a civil case. She presented, gave examples, and even checked for understanding throughout the process. It was funny how I started connecting her questioning of the potential jurors to be like TDQs in the way that each question was essential to some element of the case (were there any connections to the parties involved, the businesses, workers, was there a past experience like the case that could impact your thinking or decision…
A jury is most likely to acquit a defendant when members of the jury are sympathetic toward the defendant or disfavor the law under which the charges fall. Cases continue to exist, however, in which a juror's desire not to convict is for racial reasons. Some argue that after a long history of all White juries acquitting defendants who committed crimes against African Americans –and in a system in which African Americans have a higher likelihood of arrest and conviction –jury nullification can be a political tool in the face of a discriminatory process.…
Within the court system, bias and prejudice exists. The courts take measures to try to prevent these biases and prejudices from affecting their proceedings and the outcomes of the cases. Even with the courts best prevention efforts many ethical issues arise. One area where many ethical issues are present is in jury selection and within the jury itself.…