Our current study examines juror behaviour towards perpetrators and victims in a criminal trial setting. Taken into account, are two factors hypothesized to influence the judicial outcome of criminal trials in Canada and the United States. Primarily, that a juror's level of belief in a just world (BJW) influences his or her decisions towards both the perpetrator and victim, with those jurors measuring higher in BJW being more apt to blame the victim for his or her own misfortune. Second, that the relationship between BJW and the victim blaming behaviour of the juror is mediated by whether the victim is portrayed as innocent, having done nothing to deserve victimization; or portrayed as non-innocent, having contributed to their own misfortune through careless or immoral behaviour. We analyzed data for main effects of both BJW and victim type on outcome variables perpetrator sentencing and victim monetary compensation. Data was further analyzed for possible interaction effects between BJW and victim type using multiple regression analysis, retaining the continuous characteristic of the BJW predictor variable. Results revealed no significant interaction effects or main effect of BJW on either dependent variable, however, a significant main effect of victim type was observed.
It is not uncommon for people in unfortunate situations to be cited as the source of their own troubles. If someone has been mugged walking home, they must have somehow been responsible by leaving
The Canadian criminal justice system is often represented by the balanced scales of justice. These scales symbolize the need for the law to be viewed objectively in order to ensure a fair determination of innocence. Ideally, the criminal justice system should incorporate the values of the scales of justice to control crime and impose penalties on those who violate the law (Jordan, 2014). When dealing with crime, this system mainly uses methods of retributive justice in order to achieve its goals. However, despite justice being supposedly impartial, there is an overwhelming amount of injustice in all stages of the criminal justice process, from the charging of the individuals in court to their sentence in prison (Jordan, 2014). To combat this
Well Juror #3 talked about his own son that we see the true reason for his bias against the boy. During the trial, Juror 3 talks about how he once saw his own son run away from a fight. I remember him saying " I told him (his son) right out," I'm going bust you up into little pieces for trying." When his son was 15 he him on the face. Which clears how that this guy has huge problems with kids not respecting their father. In my understanding each Juror brings their own life problems into that jury room. We can't control our emotions, we all are human and it's normal to express feelings. One juror was hurting badly leading him to act that way. He misses his son and is very disappointed in his son for such high disrespect towards his father.
This distorted perception leads jurors to believe that cases are supposed to be handled the same way they view it on
The CSI Effect is becoming to take it’s place in courtrooms and the prosecutors aren 't liking it. Prosecutors are feeling there is no hope for getting a conviction when it’s come to the CSI Effect because they believe that it has control over the juror’s applying justice to criminal. The CSI Effect is being criticized for not allowing prosecutors a fair chance at a conviction in a jury trial for the belief that Jurors are influenced by what they see on T.V shows and how they believe that the use of forensic science should be used more to prove a person guilty of a crime. The CSI Effect is to be determined if whether or not it can affect the way a case is determined in the eyes of the jury.
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.
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.
Jury nullification should continue to be recognized as a part of the Canadian justice system. The power of the juries should stay the same crucially because in some cases the defendant may actually have a reason to not be guilty even though they may be guilty for the crime that they have committed. Authors, Neil Brooks and Anthony Doob discuss about juries and the strengths and weaknesses about them and jury nullification. Chief Justice Fraser of the Alberta Court of Appeal discusses about Krieger 's Appeal and the strengths of jury nullification and how the jury following their conscience is sometimes better than following the “rule of law”. Paul Butler suggests that the law should expand jury nullification by allowing jurors who are the same race as the defendant who is guilty be free which I believe should not be added in the criminal justice system because of the many negative outcomes it may cause in society. Jury nullification is when a jury that takes part in a case believes that the defendant is not guilty even though he/she is guilty for the crime that they have caused by using their conscience instead of considering the facts that they have been presented by the law and that follow the rule of law. Jury nullification should continued to be recognized and the power of juries should be limited because of many reasons. Although jury nullification may be a positive factor to a defendant and to society as well, sometimes it won 't be if the power of juries stays the
The news is riddled with salacious stories about the criminal activities across the nation. It can seem like these events are taking place in another world, very far from your own. But when you find yourself being charged with a criminal act, the situation hits much closer to home, literally. There is a great amount of detail and skill involved in successfully telling your side of the story to the judge and the jury. Though some defendants choose to represent themselves at trial, this is never recommended! Your defense attorney should provide the court with a biased version of your story, meaning they should present you in a good light, emphasize the events that will lessen the chances of you being found guilty, and make the jury see you as someone who is innocent.
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.
Jury trials play a centrally important role in the law, therefore it is crucial for the juror to stay neutral in making decision. However, several research shows that stereotyping is one of the most debatable issues related to juries’ decision (Bornstein & Greene, 2011). In refer to Bornstein and Greene (2011), the stereotype that females and males generally labelled in specific crime be likely to be true in the largest sense. Thus, the significance of this study is to examine the effect of stereotype in defendant gender and crime types on the juror decision.
The criminal trial process is an interesting process that takes place in Courtrooms all across the United States and throughout the globe. This study intends to set out the various steps in the criminal trial process in the American justice system. A trial is described as a "legal forum for resolving individual disputes, and in the case of a criminal charge, it is a means for establishing whether an accused person is legally guilty of an offense. The trial process varies with respect to whether the matter at issue is civil in nature or criminal. In either case, a jury acts as a fact-finding body for the court in assessing information and evidence that is presented by the respective parties in a case. A judge presides over the court and addresses all the legal issues that arise during the trial. A judge also instructs the jury how to apply the facts to the laws that will govern in a given case." (3rd Judicial District, 2012)
Of the 121 participants, three primary areas were measured, whether or not the participant found the defendant guilty or not, to what degree the participant found the defendant guilty on a 1 to 7 scale, and the severity of punishment the participant thought the defendant should receive with 5 choices. This was done by the use of four different surveys, a black discredited witness, a white discredited witness, a black witness, and a white witness. Descriptives were done on guilt rating (M = 4.55, SD = 1.539) and punishment rating (M = 2.43, SD = 1.255). Then the descriptives were broken down even more into four categories for each dependent variable in regards to the independent variables, credible witness guilt rating (M = 4.88) and
It is critical to understand why eyewitness testimony has such a great impact upon jurors’ choice of guilt because many innocent people have gone to jail due to eyewitness testimony. It is speculated that male and female jury members weigh guilt differently. This study hypothesizes there will be a measured difference between the independent factors, gender and type of eyewitness and the dependent variable, level of guilt. In this experiment the eyewitness type is: ‘no eyewitness,’ ‘unrefuted eyewitness,’ or ‘discredited eyewitness.’ The controlled condition is the level of guilt assigned by the participant after hearing details of a crime. The results supported the hypothesis. There were significant differences between the gender and eyewitness types when assigning levels of guilt. Female participants rated higher levels of guilt overall while both genders rated higher levels of guilt to the unrefuted eyewitness group over the other eyewitness types, which shown similar measures.
Juror three is a stubborn and short-tempered person. Juror three made solid sentiments in the beginning, which actively kept him involved in the discussion but he started losing control as the discussion continued. Because he disliked Juror eight, the argument between them strengthened the discussion. His loud and demanding personality made jurors go against his claim because his rage was intolerable by others. Later in the discussion, it was also revealed that he had a poor relationship with his own son, which led to believe that this was one of the causes to his intolerance against the suspect. When Juror three understood that he is only presenting an insight of his feelings regarding his own son onto the suspect, he changed his decision.
The right to a trial by jury is a core element of the United States Criminal Justice System. This right is guaranteed to all citizens by the highest law of the land: The United States Constitution. But are juries truly an effective means of securing justice? The movie 12 Angry Men provides commentary on this question with its portrayal of twelve jurors deliberating over a murder case. The jury initially seems bound to condemn the defendant, a young man of nineteen years, to the electric chair, but a single man, Juror no. 8 descents against the majority. Over the course of the film, tensions rise, and after much debate Juror no. 8 manages to convince the other eleven jurors to eventually vote not guilty. Through their debates and casual side conversations, we are shown the role of personal biases and group manipulation tactics that can impede with objective analysis and ultimately the attainment of justice. Thus, the Movie 12 Angry Men mostly serves to challenge the jury system as a means of securing justice by demonstrating the harmful effects of personal biases, the lack of dedication to the system, and the potential for manipulative tactics.