Wrestling Forum banner

Final Battle: Match #15 - Jim Coptafeel vs. striker50

538 views 2 replies 3 participants last post by  Jim 
#1 ·
The race and sex of members on a jury has an effect on the court case and it's outcome. True or False​

Deadline to hand in your debate will be Sunday May 10th. Failure to show will result in an automatic disqualification. As previously mentioned, your debates are to be posted in this thread only.

You have the option to choose your own side of the topic so you may debate the same side without consequence.

Good luck.
 
#2 ·
The criminal justice system has been under scrutiny for a long time. A huge complaint people have with the justice system is the juries. The Constitution guarantees a right to a trial by jury. However, some people think that some juries are not fair, because some people claim that race and gender play a role. However, it is false to say that the race and sex of members on a jury has an effect on the court case and its outcome.

The first proof of this is in a term known as voir dire. Voir dire is a process where both the prosecuting and defending lawyers get to question potential jurors on different issues. Then, if they have an objection to a certain juror, they can get them excluded. No doubt, any lawyer who is proficient in anyway, would ask questions and make sure there is a balance between races and genders in a jury. For years, minority groups would be excluded from juries because of this practice. However, in Batson v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court ruled that, if a juror cannot be excluded on a base of race and that the use of peremptory challenge, the lawyer’s right to dismiss jurors without reason, cannot be used to remove whole group of people from the jury.

Because of Batson v. Kentucky, a lawyer can issue a “Batson challenge,” so they can make sure that the jury is fair. Therefore, it becomes very hard for race and gender to be an issue in on the jury.
Also, according to U.S. News & World Report;
"Cases in 75 areas that resulted in dismissals or acquittals, by race:
WHITES BLACKS
Murder 23 percent 24 percent
**** 25 percent 51 percent
Robbery 35 percent 38 percent
Assault 43 percent 49 percent
Burglary 21 percent 25 percent
Felony theft 25 percent 27 percent
Drug trafficking 14 percent 24 percent
Weapons charges 22 percent 32 percent

USN&WR--Basic data: Center for Equal Opportunity"


According to these results, the trend of African-Americans being discriminated is almost being reversed. Obviously, these figures show that race is becoming less of a factor.

Batson challenges and recent trends prove two things. One, the American justice system is enforcing the 14th amendment harder and harder as we move along in history. Also, Americans are become less racist than before. Realizing, that prejudices are abounding in America, they are become less and less. This was proven in the election of Barack Obama. As the minority groups grow larger, the majority groups respect the minorities more. While there is still a lot of work to do to eliminate racism, we have come a long way, and that is shown in our court system.

Sources;
A turnaround in racial justice." U.S. News & World Report 121.n15 (Oct 14, 1996): 20(1).

Wikipedia Articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batson_v._Kentucky

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_selection
 
  • Like
Reactions: Daredevil Jeff
#3 ·
Throughout our lives we are presented with facts and information, from which we automatically draw conclusions. These conclusions are not only influenced by the inherent bias in this information, but more critically by our backgrounds: Specifically, the way in which we have been taught to behave and how interact. Put simply, our most fundamental of beliefs form the crux of how we relate to certain situations and certain elements of data.

Based on my intial premise: that no person can be quintessentially free of bias, (which, incidentally, is an incontrovertible fact and a widely accepted, albeit hardly ever recognised belief), it is fair to assume that this theory has quite the impact in the judiciary. In actuality, the epitome of this concept in practice is a Jury trial, which is essentially a legal hearing where a panel of adult 12 citizens (of any race and/or gender) acts in lieu of a judging panel to establish ‘whodunnit?’. Based on evidence presented by barristers and witnesses, the jurors must form a unanimous decision as to whether the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
And this begs the question: Does the race and sex of members on a jury have an effect on the court case and its outcome?

My answer to the question is a clear, irrefutable YES.

In his book, Bryan C Edelman illustrates that “Murderers of white victims suffer a higher probability of being sentenced to death then murderers of blacks.” This can ultimately attributed to the aforementioned theory of natural bias, and specifically the notion there is an underlying level of racism or sexism in everyone, despite constant denial by the person to themselves and to their peers. Furthermore, Edelman argues that this finding is “consistent across locations, time periods and methodologies.” In essence, he communicates my personal belief, that irrespective of where, when and how you lived, there will and forever be a natural bias which has a fundamental impact on any jury trial.

Similarly, natural bias and opinion plays an influential role in the outcome of a jury trial when the “evidence is ambiguous”. In particular, the likelihood that “legitimate factors such as race, gender and [the defendant/victim’s] attractiveness will have an effect on the sentencing” increases exponentially. This is reinforced by Porter and Wrightsman who illustrate that there is a commonly held assumption that each juror will make the same "interpretations based on past experience" when presented with evidence, and that in turn "these interpretations may influence verdicts." It’s remarkable to think that while jury trials are supposedly impartial and an effective method of concluding whether a ‘peer’ is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, this evidence overwhelmingly contradicts any notion of a neutral peer based judiciary.

That notwithstanding, Baldus, Woodworth & Pulaski state in their findings of a research project investigating racism in jury hearings that: “The race of the victim was found to have an effect on prosecutorial discretion and jury sentencing decisions.” In fact, research shows that most jurors, irrespective of whether their gender or race, will reach a decisive “sentencing decision either before the penalty phase or penalty deliberation begins”. This not only suggests that “jurors are relying upon their own decision rules rather than on the instructions provided by the judge”, but emphatically illustrates this prejudice in practice. If jurors blatantly ignore the direction of the authority figure (in this case the Judge), and instead rely on their own experiences, how can any decision reached by a jury be credible? Surely, this raises immense doubt as to whether a jury can be totally qualified to act impartially given that there is the chance that jurors will simply negate the direction of a qualified legal personnel for their own concept of how things should work.

The whole framework of Western Law hinges on the premise of the defendant having to be proved to be guilty ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. One (in this case me ;)) could argue that any system designed to form an ultimate verdict with effects that pertain to hundreds, if not thousands of people, should not be open to such outside influences; Should not be able to be doubted in any way.

In conclusion, I pose the questions:
How can a system with only 12 people have such a colossal effect on the lives of others? How can a system with only 12 people be regarded so highly, despite undeniable issues of corruption and irregulation? The answer: bias.

It is an indisputable fact that “there is a tendency to make a cognitive effort to disconfirm evidence that is inconsistent with a prior held belief” There can be no doubt that the existence of bias as an innate feature of any human’s persona has dramatic effects on any situation when differentiating between what we are comfortable with and what we are presented with as fact. The ramifications this concept has on a jury hearing are unprecedented. Put simply, the existence of prejudice and bias in males and females of any race guarantees an effect, be it positive or negative, on the outcome and actual process of any jury trial.


References

Baldus, D., Woodworth, G., Pulanksi, C. (1990). Equal justice and the death penalty.

Edelman, Bryan C. (2006). Racial prejudice, juror empathy & sentencing in death penalty cases.
LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC​

University of Calgary. (2008). The influence of gender and age in mock juror decision-making.
Retrieved from http://www.ejop.org/archives/2008/11/_the_influence.html
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top