Evaluating Causation When Confronted With Unfavorable Outcomes

There are several differences between correlation and causation. Correlation is if an event happens and is not related to another event and it is a coincidence. This would be if an event happened but it was not connected to another. An example of this would be catching a foul ball at a baseball game. It would be a correlation because you just happened to be in that place where the ball was hit and were able to catch it. Causation on the other hand is a cause and effect. One thing happens because another thing previously happened. An example of this would be if a person drank caffeine late at night, then they would be up all night. Another example of this would be if someone slipped on ice coming out of class.

In the movie 12 Angry Men, the jurors are set in a hot jury room while they are trying to determine the verdict of a young man who is accused of committing a murder. The jurors all explain why they think the accused is guilty or not guilty. Throughout the movie they are debating back and forth and the reader begins to realize that even though the jurors should try to not let bias cloud their judgement, the majority of the jurors are blinded by bias. The viewer can also see that the jurors have their own distinguishable personalities. Their personalities intertwine with each other to demonstrate how the jury system is flawed, but that is what makes it work.

Since the time that the scientific science dramatization "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation" turned into a tremendous hit and generated its fans, reporters have been worried about what they instituted the "CSI Effect." The hypothesis behind the effect is that fans of the well-known show disguise misguided judgments about the law that they bring with them into the court as jurors. In this way, the trepidation is that the TV show is at last influencing the results of trials - and not in a great manner. Criminal justice researchers have started to study the inquiry of whether nationals who are called to serve on juries bring unreasonable desires and convictions to the court as a consequence of TV projects. The impact that these projects may have on the jurors, their desires, and their choices is known as the CSI effect.

With jury bias we examined that the perspective taking, victim impact statements and race of the victim had no main effects with ps > 0.26 and no significant interactions either with ps > 0.64.

Based on observation, both studies fail to proof the existence of stereotyping when the participant link the gender factor and the nature behaviour of the specific crime itself- violent or sneaky. There are also several limitations to the current study that must be noted such as the use of individual juror judgments, rather than jury decisions. A second limitation is the use of a written summary instead of a more realistic stimulus. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to confirm either there is a link between defendant gender and crime types which are the assault and shoplifting case with its probability to guilty on the juror decision. Briefly, there were 1049 undergraduate students of psychology participated in this study and all of them were instructed to read a one page article of a crime case which telling the defendant as a male or female and his or her crime either assault or shoplifting. After that, they are required to answer survey on the rate of defendant likelihood to be guilty. The hypothesis of this study is that female defendant will be perceived as more likely to be guilty than male in shoplifting case and male will look more guilty in assault crime.

Schemas are powerful frameworks that influence how people notice, interpret, and remember information. Although they could serve as efficient shortcuts in problem solving under most daily circumstances, unconscious activation of schemas could introduce persist biases in the context of jury decision-making. Like any other people interpreting a set of complex or unfamiliar facts, jurors cannot help but be influenced by schemas when evaluating evidence and applying the law during a trial. Although they may not be correct in their assumptions about the law, jurors do not come to trials as blank slates. They typically bring with them existing schemas that shape the way they view the law, the evidence and the defendant, and these schemas

Have you ever made a decision and later completely wonder why it is you made that decision? “Sway The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior” by Ori Brafman and Rom Brafman examine moments of our lives where we could easily be swayed. The Brafmans discuss topics like commitment and value attribution. With examples of what attracts us into making a bad decision. The brilliant authors make it easy to understand the analyzations of the situations. Where there is a possibility of being swayed. With proper analyzation we can prevent these situations from taking place again. Almost everyone has made a decision we misunderstand and behind that decision is an irresistible pull of irrational behavior. No one is perfect, and no one can avoid being swayed into an irrational situation, not even me.

The assumption one may hold regarding policy-making in criminal justice is that individuals are well-informed about conviction rates as well as arrests, which influences changes in the criminal justice system. However, such assumption raises doubts on the severity of punishment. Further, perceived probability of arrest is related to subsequent criminal behavior. Such an argument is based on the belief that people with lower perceived probabilities of arrest are more likely to get involved in crime during subsequent periods.

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 assigned reading this week by Doob, A. & Kirshenbaum, H., Singall, H. & Ostrove, N., Diamond, S., and Mook, D., discussed different aspects of jury research. Doob & Kirshenbaum (1973), as well as Singall & Ostrove (1975) wrote experimental research papers where they examined a jury's decisions and point of view when it comes to determining a defendants guilt. One discussed this in the terms of whether a jury can determine creditability, and not guilt, based on a defendants past criminal history; while the other considered whether beauty interferes with a jury's decision for a defendant to receive a more lenient or harsher punishment. With these, the paper by Diamond (1997) explained how jury research usually lacks certain characteristics that make these experiments unreliable. Mook (1983) took another standpoint and discussed how things like naturalness of the experiment and generalizability cannot determine reliable results, and that a lack of a real life settings can sometimes produce stronger results.

(Tarika Daftary, 2010). Numerous studies have suggested that jurors can and will be influenced by many outlying circumstances, which can pursued them into altering their decision. In one particular study using a jury simulation experiment, researchers uncovered that something as simple as attractiveness can slant a jury’s decision. In this study, subjects were asked to read a crime scene description of a negligent automobile homicide.

Lawson (2009) explains the CSI Effect as the way criminal investigation shows influence the decisions made by jurors in court. Since these shows portray an unrealistic vision of real-life scenarios, jurors have unrealistic thoughts about the information presented in front of them. For example, television shows often suggest that DNA evidence is required for conviction and is easily and efficiently acquirable (Mallicoat, 2016). However, a rightful conviction can be reached without any DNA evidence and DNA testing is, in fact, a lengthy process. This misleading portrayal can possibly cause some jurors to believe that the evidence presented in front of them is not strong enough, should it not contain any DNA support, distorting their decision making process.

It could be argued that the upbringings that jurors bring are an advantage in the deliberation room when the reader experiences jurors such as #5, who grew up in a similar situation as the defendant. His explanation of how there was no way the boy would have held the knife, stabbing in a downward motion, because he was too smart to know that isn't the correct movement is arguably the reason many jurors switch their verdict. But Juror #5 also brings a lot of emotion to the deliberation room and takes pity on the defendant. People’s paradigms can’t play a role when it comes to a potentially innocent man on

Many experimenters have been interested in figuring out how well jurors can disregard inadmissible evidence in the courtroom. They want to know exactly when and what type of evidence can be omitted while in trial. Werner, Kagehiro, and Strube (1982) tested participants looking for authoritarians that would have had the anti-defendant bias. Authoritarians are more likely to be unable to disregard inadmissible evidence because have a bias against the defendant from the start. Acting like mock jurors, they all read summaries of a trial that held six pieces of circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution. An incriminating or exonerating wiretap evidence was added as a seventh item for some conditions. The evidence, ruled either inadmissible or admissible, tested the participants ability to disregard the evidence when declaring a verdict. They were randomly assigned to a condition in a between subjects design that was a 2 (admissibility or inadmissibility of the wiretap evidence) X 2 (incriminating or exonerating wiretap evidence). They were asked to estimate the probability of the defendant’s guilt and either acquit or convict the defendant. The experimenters used the Mitchell-Bryne Authoritarian Scale to see how authoritarian they were. They found that authoritarians were more likely to convict even when the judge ruled the evidence inadmissible if it was incriminating but they would not acquit when the evidence was exonerating. This shows that authoritarians are biased

The film Twelve Angry Men, a classic of American cinema, besides being an exquisitely constructed drama, serves as a detailed example of critical thinking in action, and the factors that interfere with rational conscious reasoning. The twelve jurors, laden with a grave responsibility of deciding the fate of another human being, employ all kinds of critical thinking skills and techniques, making errors based on their personal biases, prejudices, and emotions. Due to the complexity of the human nature and human mind there exist a myriad of factors on which one’s ability for critical thinking and the inventory of critical thinking tools depend. There are several instances when the juror number six demonstrates that he has rudimentary critical thinking skills.