For hundreds of years, the American public has watched as some of history’s most famous court cases were tried within our borders. Across the United States, courtrooms have opened their doors to some of the most gruesome crimes in the world. They have been filled with the wealthy and downtrodden, the psychotic and the sensible, and the guilty and falsely accused. However, if there was one thing that surprisingly fills our courtrooms, it is the inevitable preconceptions that our impartial juries are incapable of hiding. Despite the impartiality that juries must have, some jurors are unable to act objectively.
It is not that they choose to go against the system, but it is a reaction to either certain happenings in specific cases or a result of controversial legal procedures. Such happenings include the choice of certain witnesses and defendants to take the stand, as well as the inability for juries to gather all evidence in trials. The individual personalities of the parties involved in some court cases shape the outcome of the trial. In many cases, the ultimate jury decision is not affected by the evidence, but rather it is affected by the juror’s opinion on the specificites of the trial. In some of the most high profile cases, verdicts have been questioned because the evidence does not fit the verdict. This blog serves to analyze the wrongdoings behind case outcomes derived from factors beyond physical evidence. In studying the root of prejudice in America and some specific cases, including the trials of O.J. Simpson and the West Memphis Three, we will explore how individual behavior can unfortunately play verdict altering roles in the legal system.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Although there is no doubt that the individual personalities affect the trial's verdict, there is no way around this issue. One judge cannot try all the cases in America in order for each case to be judged equally. In fact, the ability to have a jury of your peers actually encourages the differences of opinions/personalities. The random assortment allows the suspect to have many people view the case, not just one judge. I'll be interested to see how the famous cases were influenced so much by different personalities.
I definitely agree with this, and also think that it can be a true problem in letting the guilty go free and convicting the innocent. As for the O.J. Simpson case, I personally believe that he is guilty, however I do not know if the jury finding him innocent is as much a personality issue. Perhaps it was his celebrity status. As for the West Memphis Three, I do believe that their personalities played a big role in the jury's decision. I am interested in other high profile cases and how the verdicts turned out. However, I do definitely believe that charisma can play a large role in a jury's verdict.
Trial by jury definitely has its problems, but what makes it a good institution is the fact that the variety of different opinions helps to eliminate one person’s bias. Sometimes it is inevitable that the entire jury will share the same prejudice and preconceived guilt, such as in the trial of the West Memphis Three, but I believe it is still the best system out of all the alternatives. Having a single judge, no matter how legally qualified, dictate the verdict only makes it easier for corruption and partiality to play a bigger role in the courtroom
I found it really interesting that you also focused on the personality of the defendant. One of the statements that persisted in my mind is when they criticized Jesse Misskelley for keeping his head down the entire trial because they meant it as a sign of guilt for the crime he committed when, in actuality, he was advised by his lawyers to do so. I definitely believe the impression a defendant presents can harm and help their case. And I’m really interested in how you explore O.J. Simpson’s personality because I’ve always found him to be a very peculiar guy.
We live in a society that is constantly judging individuals. The way people dress, how the talk, present themselves, and their interests all contribute to the formation of judgments about a person. Unfortunately these types of judgments are often times continued in the courtroom. This becomes very dangerous and may cause a wrong verdict to be given.
There is no credibility to judging someone based on their personality. There is no way for the jury to know whether the individual truly acts a certain way or is simply putting on a facade. Thus, the only solution to this problem is to rely more on physical and expert evidence rather than judgment.
I agree with the fact that bias plays a substantial role in all cases tried in US courts as well as those across the world. However, there seems to be no way to eliminate this bias. Each person, in this case each member of the jury, is entitled to personal opinions about the issue. Each jury member will bring with himself or herself preconceived notions about the topic being discussed. Though this bias definetly plays into the judgement of the case, I don't see how we could possibly eliminate it; however, the fact that the jury includes a random assortment of people does help ensure that the decision serves in the best interest of everyone involved.
There is no way around this issue: after all, the jury is still human. As all other humans are affected by first impressions and superficial aspects of a person, so are they. Lawyers can manipulate the jury by making their clients act a certain way to garner more sympathy from the jury. In the case of the West Memphis Three, Damien Echols' aloof demeanor certainly affected how the jury perceived him and ultimately sealed his fate.
I agree that juries lack impartiality most of the time, but do not see any way to truly solve this issue. I think that those who are more educated regarding the judicial policies of our country have a better chance of divorcing themselves from their position as a judgmental member of society and as a impartial juror. However, I don't think that we can expect to have jury members get up on the jury box and hold their obligations as more important than their own opinion.
I definitely agree with what you're saying. As I am studying right now, there are so many influencing factors involved which can affect an impartial jury. Although the jury is still human and there will always be room for errors, it seems that there must be some conclusion which can elimintate some of the partiality. Juries are suppossed to be random, but does that provide for truly equal representation if certain character traits are randomly selected more than others? I see a flaw in this system.
Hi.. I think that many of us are very much aware that our judges and juries are not, and never will be, free from factors that will hinder their objectivity. Living in America, we have to accept that people are unique individuals with their unique ideologies and experiences. How can we not be aware of this inherent flaw in our judges and juries. Hence, I think this would be a sweeping statement to there is an "inevitable preconception". Just a little vocabulary accuracy here. But I think it is difficult and actually impossible to expect our juries to be fully objective. Is an objective verdict objective in the first place - it really depends on which side of the case you are on right? Hence, I think the real issue here is to know how to identify biasness and devise better systems to control it. Nice work thus far!
Post a Comment