Class Notes (806,881)
Canada (492,496)
Psychology (2,614)
PSYC 2400 (263)
Adelle Forth (107)
Lecture 13

Lecture 13

9 Pages
Unlock Document

Carleton University
PSYC 2400
Adelle Forth

Lecture 13: Juries Tuesday, February 15, 2011 - *Quickly going back to last class: Child luring on the Internet - Up to 2007: 464 cases that came to the attention of officials (there are many other cases that the officials never find out about) - Of these cases, most incidents were not cleared (never found who was trying to solicit the child) - Others cleared by charge - Others cleared otherwise - We’re paying more attention to luring on the Internet - Thousands of children 12-18 being asked whether they’ve been solicited—13% in the States - 22% saw unwanted sexual images (sent to them/inadvertently got to a website) - Did you ever meet the person?—only in 2 cases did the youth answer yes - This youth luring is quite common on the Internet, but relatively rare that youth actually meets these individuals - Cleared by charges—most were male between the ages of 18 and 34 (not surprising that young males would be charged, and that they would be luring children) - Mandatory reporting—if you have reasonable grounds to suspect that someone is abusing child or the child needs protection, you are supposed to report it to the Children’s Aid Society (as long as the report is not malicious in nature, not trying to get back at someone by falsifying what you saw) - If you misinterpreted some situation and there are no grounds for abuse, you cannot be charged—but you can be charged if you intentionally falsified it - Mandatory reporting of child pornography o Bill C-58: if you know someone with computer, and there are images of child pornography, you are required to report that - Why might a person who witnesses child abuse not report it? o You might be afraid that the abuser would harrass you, target you o Bystander effect—someone else probably is going to take responsibility o You don’t want to admit that someone close is abusing someone—you want to deny it/make excuses o Don’t want to disrupt the whole family o Maybe you don’t consider it serious enough to get Children’s Aid involved o Will it be in the child’s benefit—will it solve the problem? o Some people might be concerned about the legal consequences, might not know about mandatory reporting o Might not want children to be separated into foster homes and stuff o Children would rather stay with parents, even if they abused them (emotional conflicts) - Assignment 2 o Mr. Hattori robbed late at night by a caucasian man with a knife o No other witnesses, provided immediate description o Simultaneous line-up 2 weeks later with no hypnosis/4 months later with hypnosis o (I got the version with hypnosis) o *Simultaneous lineups—relative judgements o *Sequential lineups—absolute judgements - **Manipulated time of recall and hypnosis - Confidence that he correctly identified - Case 1—26% said not at all, 66% said somewhat, 8% said very - Case 2—43% said not at all, 55% said somewhat, 2% said very - Why you are confident or not confident in the accuracy o Weapon focus o Emotional arousal, fearful o Time delay (4 months in case 2) o Cross-racial effect o Contextual (dark, poor lighting, late, winter had covering up hair) o Use of simultaneous line-ups o Hypnosis o Police may have used leading questions; misinformation effect - Verdict o 78% said not guilty o 22% said guilty - Reasons o Only one eyewitness o Not enough evidence o Hypnosis inadmissible o Not beyond a reasonable doubt o No hard evidence—DNA and fingerprint (CSI effect—jurors now expect to see DNA) - Guilty o Identified robber o Trust CJS (criminal justice system) - Legal decision making o Lady Justice—sword to melt out justice, blindfolded in order not to be impacted by visual evidence, scales of justice to balance the evidence to decide which side has more evidence o In Canada, we have adversarial system—judge and jury are relatively passive in the sense that they are not involved in the actual trial (they don’t stand up and start cross-examining the expert on the stand)  Two sides presenting each side of their case  Do get sometimes a sense that prosecution is fighting for a conviction, not always just fighting for justice o In inquisitorial system, judge acts as the investigator—interrogates and speaks to all the witnesses—involved in the front-end  They may go down to the crime scene  Interrogates suspects  In order to determine what is the truth  Quite different - Characteristics of juries o Representativeness  If you’re on the voter’s list, at some point in time you may be asked to serve as a juror  Want to be representative of Canadian population  The point is to be tried by your peers  Randomly selected o Impartial  Set aside any biases or prejudices  Over age 18, Canadian citizen, not a member of certain professions (another lawyer, judge, doctor, fire fighter, police officer, etc.)  If it will cause you too much hardship, write to the judge (this trial will last 50 days, I’m in my final graduating year, etc.) - Ontario: o Don’t get paid for the first 10 days o From 11-49 days, get paid $40/day o From 50 days onward, get paid $100/day o You’re not going to make money doing this, it’s a civic duty - Primarily used in criminal cases o We don’t have lot of jury trials, or else there would be more jury summons o Mandatory for murder, judge alone for summary offenses, high-bred offences are optional o In Ontario, only 20% of criminal trials are jury trials—not as common - Consists of __ people o In Canada, 12 people need to be in jury (can drop 2 and replace them if they get sick) o In US since 1978, they’ve dropped the number (sometimes 6, depending on the state) - Final verdict must be unanimous o If it’s 10 vs. 2, 9 vs. 3, 11 vs. 1, we have a hung jury o Will we retry this individual or not? o People come in with their individual idea and listen to other people talk, and they may be swayed to change their mind o Or maybe they come in completely confused by expert testimony and stuff, listen to one person with strong opinion, over time they agree o In the US, does not need to be unanimous (sometimes accept 10/2), but we need unanimous - Biases o Interest prejudice  Ex. Relative is charged with offence and you ask to be juror  If you know the defendant, you’d have an interest in the outcome  Or if you know someone who got charged with the same crime and feel he was well-off, you have an interest o Specific prejudice  Ex. Child abuse crime, you’ve experienced that in your past  Specific prejudice against all child abusers  Or, because of pre-trial publicity, you’ve developed a specific prejudice against that person o Generic prejudice  Racial bias against First Nations people/men  Doesn’t matter about the evidence you’re going to hear o Normative prejudice  Whole community forms prejudice against that individual  Ex. Ottawa would be against Russell Williams if he went to trial  Would be hard to find 12 individuals who are willing to hear evidence - Gillian Guess o The only juror in Canada who’s ever been charged for obstruction of justice st o Peter Gill—2 counts 1 degree murder (his co-defendants lured drug dealers, killed the competition) o He and 2 others charged o He pled not guilty o Gillian was juror—clerks (takes files from lawyer, gives to judge) noticed that she was flirting with Peter—flip her hair, smile at him, etc. o While trial was going on, Gill was out in community o They met in McDonald’s, became intimate o Relationship became sexual—she thought maybe she shouldn’t be doing this, Peter said not to say anything, that she could help them not convict him o He said don’t worry, I’m innocent—convict the other two and not me o All of them were found not guilty o After the fact, their relationship became known—both were charged with obstruction of justice o She got 18 month sentence, he got 6 year prison term o Judge was annoyed by the fact that this happened in his court room o He was not guilty of the murder charge, but did get convicted for this obstruction of justice o Judge saw the defendant as more responsible because he kept telling her to stay in jury - 2 legal functions o Decide the facts from trial evidence  Opening statement by Crown  Defence typically have opening statement  Prosecution presents evidence first  Defence cross-examines  Defence presents evidence  Prosecution cross-examines  Closing statements by prosecution  Closing statements by defence • Trial can last from a day to years • If you have 600 witnesses, it would be long • Pickton trial went on for years • Listening to years of testimony and then making decision is extremely challenging o Decide on a verdict  Beyond a reasonable doubt  (In the mind of a reasonable person)  If there’s any real doubt, say not guilty  But you don’t have to be absolutely certain  Difficult when the judge gives their instructions and people have no clue  Research says they have no
More Less

Related notes for PSYC 2400

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.