Bias Are About The Normative Standard

The jury system of a trial is an essential element of the democratic process. It attempts to secure fairness in the justice system. Traditionally, the jury system has been viewed as a cornerstone of common law procedure. However, the use of the system of trial by jury is on the decline. Today, its use differs, depending on whether (a) it is a civil or criminal matter, and (b) in criminal matters, whether it is a summary or an indictable offence.

During jury selection, potential jurors are interviewed then chosen or eliminated from the jury. The initial selection of potential jurors is completely random; citizens get “jury Duty” notices on a random basis. The screening of the jury selection is conducted by both the prosecution and the defense, and is overviewed by the judge on the case. During the interview, citizens are asked a number of strategic questions to ensure that they are not in any way bias for or against the defendant or case. The questions also eliminate those who have any connection to the case, in any way. It is during this interview that the lawyers on the case can voice their concerns regarding biased jurors.

Juries exists in the criminal trial to listen to the case presented to them and, as a third, non-bias party, decide beyond reasonable doubt if the accused is guilty. For the use of a trial by juror to be effective, no bias should exists in the jurors judgments, the jurors should understand clearly their role and key legal terms, and the jury system should represent the communities standards and views whilst upholding the rights of the accused and society and remain cost and time effective.

In trials like that of Casey Anthony, the mother arrested and charged with killing her two-year-old daughter Caylee, the popularity and widespread coverage of the case definitely influenced how citizens across the country believed Anthony should be sentenced (Document D). Anyone who saw one news story on the case that was then called to the jury probably already had formed their opinion on the status of Anthony’s innocence, without reviewing any court evidence. Consequently, their predisposed opinion, similar to the cats’ on the jury in Cartoon 3 of Document E, could have resulted in a weighted outcome. Also, the fear of a “wrong decision” made by the jury could have motivated a juror to vote solely for the outcome most popularly desirable. For example, Document D quotes Janine Gonzalez, a nearby member of Anthony’s community, as saying “She (Casey Anthony) better move and move to a faraway place.” Even though, in the end, Anthony was declared innocent, the fear of her life as well as the possible violence that could occur after the verdict could have been enough to sway a juror to convict her just to satisfy a popular

Some of the hardest decisions on trial are made by the jury, which means the jurors have one of the most important roles when it comes to the trial, since they have to decide on another human’s fate, either. One decision a jury makes can be the difference between going to jail for life or being liberated. When O.J. Simpson was declared “not guilty” for the homicide of his wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and his friend, Ronald Lyle Goldman, by the Lance Ito, many argued that O.J. should have been proclaimed “Guilty”. Although many claim the verdict given was ideal, strong evidences, proves O.J. Simpson to be guilty for murdering 2 of his close acquaintances.

Women have expressed their political allegiance long before the dawn of modern era. However, the quest for equality has always been undermined by the male dominance throughout the history. Even in the most developed countries like the United States of America, women were not entitled to the same rights and privileges as men. “In Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote. The Supreme Court upheld state court decisions in Missouri, in which a registrar had refused to, register a woman as a lawful voter because the state 's laws allowed only men to vote”.

There are numerous factors in a courtroom trial that can significantly affect the verdict reached by jurors and can potentially influence whether the perpetrator of crime is ultimately convicted or is acquitted. In this essay I will explore several of these factors including how the personal characteristics of the defendant (e.g. attractiveness, gender and race) persuasion techniques (e.g. order of testimony) and jury characteristics can determine the conviction of a criminal.

The U.S. jury system is marked by its relatively strong credibility and positive public opinion. Two clear strengths of the jury system stem from this fact; the first being that juries generally reach reasonable verdicts on guilt or damages (in civil cases) and the second being that judges generally agree with the verdicts/sentencing recommendations reached by juries. However, the source of jury strength can also be a source of weakness. There is an explored by unexplained gap between judge opinion and jury opinion in some cases that leaves some scholars baffled (i.e. cases where judges and juries come to very different conclusions about a case). In addition to this, a sharp decline in juries resolving cases at both the federal and state levels

For the past 45 years in the world of academia only 206 articles were published about jury simulations with the inclusion of jury deliberations (Devine, Clayton, Dunford, Seying & Pryce, 2001). This is a rate of about 4.6 articles per year, a very small number in comparison to all the articles that are published with out jury deliberations. Jury deliberations are an important aspect of juror studies. There has always been ongoing concern amongst researchers about whether jury decision-making can be adequately replicated and studied in the lab. In order to achieve this the focus has often been that if a representable sample is used then the results can be highly generalizable to the public. This paper will attempt to argue that differences between a student sample and community based sample in mock jury studies are minimal and that

This evidence explains the mood because it shows that the jurors are becoming violent and hostile towards each other. The jurors are

After 3 weeks of keeping a journal of my bias’s I have found I can now reflect on the process. I must say I am somewhat surprised with the outcome. I have found new bias’s I never knew I had or never took the time to think that I had. I also reflected on biases that I knew I had. When it comes down to it, everyone has biases about something. So saying that you do not have a bias or denying would just be a lie.

After taking a close look at how I obtain my news on a regular day, I concluded that my primary news source is IRC networks of all things. An example of this is the tragic death of Satoru Iwata of Nintendo that happened yesterday. I was discussing something completely unrelated to Iwata when someone messaged us, sharing the news. From there, we frantically Googled, thinking it was some sort of prank at first. Once it sank in, we realized it really happened. Overall, my friends keep me posted, sometimes even while I am watching TV. I try to get multiple points of view, knowing the people around me have blatant subjective biases. In my opinion, yes, it is necessary to see more than one source before stopping for the day when it comes to news.

The world is biased whether some want to believe it or not. My own essay is biased.Whenever someone is one sided we automatically accuse him or her of being quite prejudice. Humans are always inclined to interpret situations in an individual way. People perceive each other in society fairly critically and diminish traits by looking at someone’s flaws. Although bias can be detectable,some types of bias are hard to point out. We consistently categorize the world attempting to lose threats. There is a variety of bias that is used in print media and also in person but why is that?How would we be able to conquer this biases we have in society as it is?

I guess I tried my best to explained and not be bias, in my personal opinion and this something I strong believe stop and frisk in practical imperative is wrong and unethical searching of people because I see more wrong doing that benefits, maybe I can’t stop thinking as Hispanic and my bias is showing, something I strong working every single day, but with the political environment we have right know, I just can’t. in Formalism I agree need more info, but I come back to what I just told you. I can see is the right thing to do is what the law say, and I understand why , who, how and must do, but I don't agree is the police officer need more training in not to be Bias, with race, religion, if they are LGTBQ. There one case that I keep bring up

Firstly, the bias is framing of the problem. When people frame the problem in different ways, it will result in different decision. The example is observed when ‘the description of options in terms of gains (positive frame) rather than losses (negative frame) elicits systematically different choices’ (Gonzalez, C., Dana, J., Koshino, H. & Just, M. 2005). This takes an important place in business decision making. ACAR is made following. Frame (2012) outlines that framing is the first step when people make decisions. Russo and Schoemaker (1989) proves that this bias affects the recognition and response to problems by providing the ‘boundaries (what will be considered part of the choice set), reference points (elements used to determine success and failure), and yardsticks (how the outcomes are measured)’. Nevertheless, different people can have different framing of the problem so if they exchange thoughts, outcomes