Introduction:
State and federal courts have become deciders in cases that can alter laws and carry their influence for generations. Prominent cases have included segregation, women's rights, or more recently firearms and immigration. These court decisions are often met with debate, individuals on both sides may disagree with a judge or jury’s ruling. More and more individuals are losing faith in the American judicial system, one of those aspects being the growing disbelief in the jury system, and rightfully so.
The Tales of a Biased Jury: Mr. White is not so white:
The morning of August 11, 1979, an intruder broke into a Manchester, Georgia home then beat and raped the resident, a 74-year-old woman. After the violence, he took her cash and left. At the crime scene, investigators found a pubic hair that was thought to be the intruders. Fast forward six weeks after the incident and Mr. John Jerome White (a 25-year-old African-American) was arrested on drug charges (unrelated to the previously mentioned incident). It was decided last minute to include him in a police line-up
 |
Police line-up where White was identified as intruder/attacker,
when all along the guilty man was standing right next to him. |
where the previously mentioned rape victim identified him as the intruder/attacker. She selected him stating, she was “almost positive” he was the attacker. Although she witnessed later that there was very little light in the apartment and she was not wearing her prescription eye wear, White was still convicted and sentenced, where he served more than 22 years in prison before DNA testing (with the hair) proved his innocence and led to convicting another man who actually had committed the crime
[1].
Layers of the Jury Onion: it makes me cry:
Blame or finger pointing is not necessary when it comes to a case like this. The identification from a line-up was one of the best options at the time. However this could raise some potential biases regarding jurors. Research suggests that the race of both the victim and the defendant will influence sentencing, one study found that defendants with more stereotypical “black features” were more likely to be sentenced to death
[2]. The sentencing could have resulted with harsher results due to the bias in regards to the victim. The jury members’ sympathetic tendencies (the natural tendency to feel sympathy for any rape victim, but especially one that is 74 years old!) led them to look beyond the “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” standard and ignoring key points such as, an “almost positive” identification, little light in the victim’s apartment, and obscured vision.
Racial bias, although significant, is not the only bias found in juries. There are also some theories that state juries could be harsher on heavier and “less attractive” witnesses. This discrimination could be happening either consciously or subconsciously
[3]. A study performed indicated the attractiveness of the victim (and even the defendant) both influence decisions made by jurors
[4].
A jury has also been accused in a case for providing the death sentence instead of life in prison after learning the defendant was a homosexual, on their "unofficial speculation" that he would "enjoy" being locked up with men and it would not be a sufficient punishment
[5].
The (Im)possibilities of De-biasing:
With these biases (both conscious and subconscious) are juries able to decide cases based on the facts and the law? There are de-biasing techniques being studied to disrupt these stereotypes, such as:
· Exposure to counter-stereotypes (positive images of African-Americans, like Martin Luther King and negative images of white Americans, like Jeffrey Dahmer).
· Creating more diverse judicial benches and juries
[6].
Whatever the solution may be, it is evident that these jury biases are not in alignment with the objectives that the American judicial system wants to accomplish.
Discussion:
Do you disagree with my claims that John Jermone White had a biased jury? Or do you believe there was enough evidence, based on what was available in the late 1970’s, to convict him?
Do you think these jury (and I’ll expand this to judicial benches as well) biases create an “unfair” treatment of parties within a trial?
Do you think it is getting into the gray area to apply this type of cognitive psychology (counter-stereotyping) to law?
What would be the best way to diversify a jury?
There is something called “virtual trials” that is a proposed solution where jury members would not be able to see any skin colors, or “attractiveness” levels to eliminate bias. What do you think of that?
What are some other options to improve the bias situation within a jury, or in general, the courtroom?
Sources:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
