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