KHA312 Lecture Notes - Lecture 10: Group Polarization, Nus No Platform Policy, Smart People
Psychology and Law week 10: Juries
- Enormous variation in the structure and number of juries depending on what
state you are in in Australia and America
oUnanimous
oMajority rules (10 vs. 2 for eg.)
- Can say which process is superior
oVaries dramatically
- There are a number of arguments for and against the use of juries to assess the
guilt of defendants:
oEveryday people have the right to engage in the process and have their
say
oEncourages people to be involve, participate, and understand and show
an interest in different areas
Don’t close off
oBeing tough on crime and pushing for convictions is not necessarily
the best thing
Pushing for justice is important
oLiterature for juries:
Random selection, representative of the population
Judged by their peers
Reflect public’s view of the CJS ensuring unpopular or unjust
law are not enforced
Fact assessment is commonsense best left to lay people
Juror not case hardened
Have an open mind
Jury trials are cornerstone of out adversarial criminal trial
process
There is no acceptable alternative
This is incorrect
Many other examples of functional system of justice
oLiterature against:
Juries are not randomly selected
Certain demographics are prone to certain bias against
crime
Not representative of society as a whole
Juries can struggle with complex issues
Probabilities are particularly tricky for people
Jurors are subject to prejudice and irrationality
Biased against particular witness types
Police
Perform important function in uncomfortable surroundings
without preparation
Juries prolong the length and costs trials
Naïve of courtroom tactics to manipulate them/information
Stealing thunder
- How good are juries:
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
oEstablishing what ground truth is is difficult
We can’t compare outcome to baseline truth to determine
accuracy
We just don’t know
Not clear when not guilty is the right verdict
Anytime there is reasonable doubt this is ‘not guilty’
OJ Simpson
Let him go because they thought he was framed, but also
thought he was still guilty
oCompare with judges: who know law
Consistency indicates a good decision?
Chicago Jury Project:
Surveyed 3500 trial judges
Jurors convicted 64%: in 96% of those cases, judges
agreed with decision
oJudges convicted 83% of cases
oStrict guilt criterion: leniency bias
Juries more lenient than judges
Acquittals: judges would have actually convicted 57%
of these acquittals
Is disagreement a problem?
oThis is why juries exist
Compare with shadow juries:
Jury eligible sample sits in on case and makes verdict
Consistency may indicate sensible decision
Great mind think allow (or do fools never differ)
Real juries are more lenient:
oWhen compared to shadow juries
oKnow their decisions have real consequences
oRequire a stricter burden of truth
oBeyond reasonable doubt…
oSome discrepancies evident:
Researchers start to wonder why
How do juries reach their decisions?
Translating evidence into a verdict…
- Methodologies:
oNon-experimental methods:
Archival data, questionnaires
Strengths:
Lots of data
Real cases = ecological validity
Evidence of real cases with real consequences
Negatives:
No control over variables of interest, confound
oCan only look at the variables that were part of
any trial
oAnd those that were actually documented
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
oAnything else, we don’t know about
Causality
Desirability and confirmation bias
oPost verdict questionnaires
Shadow juries:
Ecological validity is outstanding
Observe the deliberation
Weaknesses:
Small samples: costs time and concern
People don’t want to volunteer to sit in on a boring case
Judges have restrictions to what cases they are allowed
to sit in on
oNot representative
oExperimental methods:
Mock jury simulations
Brief written, audio, video scenarios
oWith manipulation
Statistical power: need large number of juries
8-12 members per study = lots of participants
- Jury or juries decisions making:
oHow do groups of individual jurors reach decisions
oDeliberation
oInfluenced by: interactions between
Group processes: how do people’s thoughts, behaviours change
due to group membership
Groupthink:
Tendency for group to seek consensus at the expense of
critical evaluation of facts and the situation
Tends to occur in high status, highly cohesive groups
oMembers suppress personal doubts
If they don’t agree with group
They don’t voice their concerns
oOpen dissent is stifled by other group members
oCan reduce decision quality
Going away and come up with a counter-
argument
8 symptoms:
oMight is right
Illusion of Invulnerability
We cant be wrong
Illusion of morality:
We are all smart people so this
must be the morally correct thing
to do
oClose-mindedness
Rationalization: if challenged, they give
plausible reason that isn’t the real reason
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Enormous variation in the structure and number of juries depending on what state you are in in australia and america: unanimous, majority rules (10 vs. 2 for eg. ) Can say which process is superior: varies dramatically. Don"t close off: being tough on crime and pushing for convictions is not necessarily the best thing. Pushing for justice is important: literature for juries: Reflect public"s view of the cjs ensuring unpopular or unjust law are not enforced. Fact assessment is commonsense best left to lay people. Jury trials are cornerstone of out adversarial criminal trial process. Many other examples of functional system of justice: literature against: Certain demographics are prone to certain bias against crime. Not representative of society as a whole. Perform important function in uncomfortable surroundings without preparation. Na ve of courtroom tactics to manipulate them/information. Stealing thunder: establishing what ground truth is is difficult. We can"t compare outcome to baseline truth to determine accuracy.
