Speculated on the Fairness of the Whole Justice System - Research Paper Example

? Are Jurors Biased for or against Defendants Due To Level of the Defendant’s Affluence? Much has been speculated on the fairness of the whole justice system. Research has been conducted to try and determine the decision-making patterns of jurors. Research studying biases of jurors has previously mainly focused on factors such as race, gender and sexual orientation. Psychologists have long held that it is impossible for jurors to remain objective in their judgments. In both tort and criminal justice, juror biases have played a principal role in determining juries’ final judgments. Little research has been done on the biases formed by jurors on defendants by virtue of how poor or wealthy the defendant is. This is a report on research performed to ascertain whether members of juries form any biases in favor of or against defendants based on the defendant’s level of affluence. Are Jurors Biased for or against Defendants Due To the Level of Defendant’s Affluence? Ashworth (2005) describes many theories regarding group and individual decision making. The behavior and attitudes of jurors have been studied to gauge how they affect the final jury decision in cases. Most times, it has been found that the personality of the defendant and the victim/complainant bears more weight in the jury’s decision than the evidence produced in court. The personality of the lawyers too has been shown to have a bearing on juror biases and decision making. This experiment specifically sought to examine jury reactions and decisions based only on the defendant’s affluence. It gauges the decision of prospective jurors when faced with the same case but given two different scenarios. The first scenario, version A, involves a wealthy defendant while the second scenario, version B, involves a not well-to-do defendant. For objectivity in the collection of the primary data, none of the respondents were exposed to both scenarios. Each was required to answer to the questionnaire of either scenario A or scenario B. The question of juror bias in relation to defendant affluence has recently gained prominence after high profile cases have been closely followed by the media. On the one hand, there have been allegations for schemers preying on the rich for financial gain by filing ridiculous lawsuits. These are cases where jurors rule that someone feigned some sort of injury or damage and asked the courts to hold a rich defendant culpable with an intention to gain financially. On the other hand, there are cases where it has been felt that jurors were lenient on a defendant due to the defendant’s affluence. It has also been a cry by the poor that juries exhibit biases against them with disregard to actual evidence adduced. It is such concerns that have necessitated studies into possible biases held by jurors in relation to a defendant’s affluence. The main purpose of the experiment was to first find out if there are any existing prejudices in the minds of potential jurors by virtue of whether the defendant is wealthy or deprived. The next purpose was to ascertain where such biases generally lean. Is it for or against wealthy defendants? Is it for or against deprived defendants? Such research should prove invaluable for lawyers and prosecutors when conducting the voir dire, or jury selection process. It would also help legal practitioners in finding ways to sway the opinion of jurors and influence their decisions during depositions and when arguing their cases. Other possible outcomes are to find ways to protect the poor from unfavorable and unfair outcomes that occur due to lack of finances. The research’s findings may also help the rich find protection against decisions that are based on unfounded biases against them. The experiment faced some limitations in a few areas. The number of participants was small, due to the small number of students in a single class. The participants may also not have been a fair representation of a cross-section of society, as a panel of jurors should ideally be. Due to limited time, the questionnaires did not allow for more comprehensive responses. For example, to capture the extent of bias, the questionnaire may have asked the respondents to suggest amount of compensation for the victim, the number of years in which the defendant may not be allowed to obtain a BC license, and even ascertain the guilt or innocence of the defendant. All these other variables had already been decided. Responses to these questions would have provided a much clearer picture on juror biases. The disparity between the judgments would have been greater and clearer. Methods Participants were given a closed-ended questionnaire to respond to. There were two versions of questionnaires and each participant was given only one version to respond to. They were to pass sentence of between five and twenty-five years jail time to the defendant based on the evidence given. The two versions depicted the same circumstances, the only difference being the defendant in version A was from a wealthy family while version B gives a defendant from an average family. The questionnaire was brief and respondents had a stipulated limited time period of ten minutes to submit their answers. This was done mainly to get the respondents initial reactions which are believed to capture their individual true and accurate inner biases. The answer to be submitted was a simple answer depicting the number of years the juror would suggest for imprisonment of the offender. No explanations, justifications, reasons, or rationalization for the decisions was required. Anonymity of respondents was required and the participants did not put their names on the questionnaire or any identification marks. However, on a separate piece of paper, they had to fill and sign consent forms and these were not attached to the questionnaires. Participants In total, there were 17 participants in the experiment, 8 of who responded to the questionnaire for version A, and 7 responded to questionnaires for version B. Two participants did not submit their responses within the stipulated period and in the prescribed manner. The participants were drawn from a student subject pool among my classmates from different family backgrounds. Instruments The questionnaire gave the story of a twenty year old SFU undergraduate student in a rush to arrive for an examination on time. The student has a new BC driver’s license. He is driving his new car, a recent birthday present from his parents, rushing to sit for an exam. Sensing that he may arrive late for the paper, the student uses a shorter route through the park. The park roads are intended for park vehicles only and have a 30 km/hr speed limit. Driving at a speed of 50 km/hr, the student hits a cyclist who gets confined to a wheelchair for the rest of his life. The student receives a sentence that requires him to financially compensate the cyclist, serve 5 years in jail without probation, and he is not allowed to obtain a BC’s license for 30 years. The questionnaire further states that for injuring a cyclist, a driver holding a BC license usually gets a jail sentence of a minimum of 5 years and a maximum of 25 years depending on each individual case. Procedures The questionnaire then asks the respondent what sentence they would suggest for the defendant. The difference between the defendant in version A and the defendant in version B is their type of car driven. Version A defendant is driving a $ 150,000 Mercedes-Benz CLS while version B driver has a $ 10, 000 Toyota Yaris. This suggests that driver A comes from an affluent background while driver B comes from an average family in terms of wealth. Results Of the 17 participants, 8 responded to questionnaire version A while 7 responded to questionnaire version B. 2 participants failed to submit their responses. The cumulative number of years given by respondents of version A is 78 years, while the sum of years of jail time given for version B is 50 years. The two tables below show a summary of the responses for questionnaires version A and version B. Discussion The duty of a juror is to hear the arguments in a trial both for and against the defendant and make a fair judgment based on evidence and witness testimonies. To make the final decision, the jurors must discuss the evidence and witness accounts among themselves, deliberate upon them, and make a unanimous decision. However, being human, the jurors are most likely to be swayed in favor of or against the defendant based on the personality of either the defendant, or the complainant, or both. There are also other outside factors that may influence their opinions and decisions. These include media coverage, community opinion, gossip, personal prejudices, and even education levels. Jurors are typically common citizens who may or may not have any formal study of the law. Therefore at times they may not fully understand the evidence put forward to them during the courtroom procedures. Hence they are most likely to base their judgments on their personal feelings on what is right or wrong. There is a common tendency for people to stereotype others and make judgments on personal character just from knowledge of the person’s background. Scenario A presents the juror with a wealthy defendant who defied the law and ended up seriously injuring a cyclist. This may create a negative picture of an arrogant, irresponsible kid who is used to getting away with offenses by virtue of coming from a rich family. On the other hand, version B presents the juror with a defendant from an average background. This may create a negative picture of someone used to cutting corners and using reckless means with disregard to the law. This prejudgments may cause the juror to have misconceptions about the true character of the defendant and some may already view the defendant as guilty even before the evidence is produced. In both scenarios, the defendant is found guilty and the question put forward to the respondents is the severity of the punishment the guilty party deserves. Therefore the question was not on the defendants’ guilt but on the punishment. The issue of compensation for the victim has also been resolved. Respondents in both scenarios offered a sentence that was higher than the five year sentence that had been passed. Respondents to version A passed a sentence that comes to a mean of 9.8 years while respondents to version B arrived at a mean of 7.1 years. The mean of both versions put together puts the sentence at 8.5 years imprisonment (See table I below). The poorer defendant gets a more lenient sentence compared to the wealthy defendant. This reveals a potential bias against wealthy defendants by the respondents, who are acting as prospective jurors. Scenario A shows a lack of empathy towards wealthy wrongdoers. Supported by text written by Dorpat (2007), this offers a suggestion that people generally think of rich kids as arrogant and inconsiderate. It points to a feeling among the respondents that heavier penalties should be meted out on the rich to deter them from taking advantage of their wealth and status to oppress the less able. It also leads to the belief that the rich need to be punished heavily for taking advantage of their wealth to commit crimes with the feeling that they can get away without punishment. Similarly, as exemplified by Reiman and Leighton (2009), Scenario B shows a tendency towards leniency for the deprived student as compared to the wealthy student, though it is also an increase in the sentence actually meted out. The variance figures and standard deviation also suggest that most of the respondents of version B questionnaire had a sentence that was in the same range. The distribution of the figures for version A suggests the respondents had higher disparities in their opinion of what the sentence should be. Courtroom history shows many cases where the affluent were viewed to have got away with serious crimes by virtue of their wealth. In August, 1976, Thomas Cullen Davis was charged with the murder of his wife’s boyfriend and her twelve year old daughter. Cullen, heir to a vast business and an oil magnate, faced his wife’s testimony and strong circumstantial evidence that suggested he was the murderer. His lawyer argued his case and created reasonable doubt and the jury found him not guilty of murder. The O.J Simpson case seemed at first glance to be an open and shut case likely to end in sentencing. The lawyers for the defense created reasonable doubt and blocked some evidence due to legalities. The defendant was acquitted after a lengthy court case that had undertones of racism. Apart from the race factor, many believe the defendant won the case because he had the money. Another case in point is the dismissal of charges against William Kennedy Smith in 1991. He is a physician and a member of the wealthy, high profile, politically connected Kennedy family. Three other women came forward with testimonies of having been raped previously by the defendant. His legal team cast aspersions on the victims and created reasonable doubt as to whether the accused really did rape the plaintiff or it was a case of consensual sex. The lawyers argued against the inclusion of the testimonies of the other three complainants and won the case. The defendant had another case of sexual harassment and rape in 2004 filed by an employee and similarly the case was dismissed. It has been argued by MacCoun (1996) among others, and with reasonable evidence, that the rich do not win such cases only due to the bias of jurors that works in favor of the wealthy. The cases are won because the wealthy hire experienced lawyers with extensive resources to investigate all evidence adduced and to challenge the legality of the proceedings. These lawyers have the capability of tracking all extenuating factors and use them to advantage in winning their cases. They also have the resources and clout to shape public opinion through the media and public relations activities and this help in swaying court and jury decisions. The lawyers spare no resources to ensure that incriminating evidence was collected in line with the legally stipulated mechanisms and where there is a loophole they take full advantage to dismiss such evidence. Lieberman and Krauss (2009) assert that though law is legislated to apply equally to all citizens, it seldom achieves the concept of social equity. Access to opportunities, equal treatment, and equal access to resources are ideal but seemingly unachievable. The differentiating strata such as gender, race, education levels, religion, and income seem to favor one over the other. Egalitarianism simply does not exist, even in the hallowed courtrooms where are required by law to be perceived as equal and treated as such. This experiment is an indicator of a quiet rebellion in the minds of prospective jurors against impunity by the rich. The average juror seems of the opinion that the rich are arrogant and manipulative and always feels they can get away with crimes. Therefore, when given the opportunity, they try to redress that by handing stiffer penalties to the affluent, more than they would to the deprived. Conclusion Are jurors biased depending on the financial status of the defendant? As explained by Bornstein and Greene (2011), there are many arguments that seem to support this question. Some are of the opinion that jurors are more lenient towards the wealthy while others think jurors always seek to impose heavier penalties on the rich. The constitution seeks to guarantee all defendants the right to a trial by an impartial panel of jurors chosen from a cross-section of the community. Ideally, a defendant facing a trial should have the case determined by a jury of peers. To aid in that, the trial process allows for both the defense team and the prosecution team to choose the jurors. This experiment shows a slight disparity in the sentences given to two individuals who have committed the same crime but come from different financial backgrounds. The experiment seems to favor the notion that jurors are biased against the wealthy and are likely to return more punitive sentences to the affluent. The experiment also shows that prospective jurors are biased in favor of deprived defendants and are likely to offer lenient sentences on them as compared to the sentence handed to a wealthy defendant. References Ashworth, A. (2005). Sentencing and criminal justice. Cambridge University Press. Bornstein, B., & Greene, E. (2011). Jury decision making: Implications for and from psychology. Dorpat, T. L. (2007). Crimes of punishment: America’s culture of violence. Algora Publishing. Lieberman, J. D., & Krauss, D. A. (2009). Psychology in the courtroom. Ashgate Publishing. MacCoun, R. J. (1996). Differential treatment of corporate defendants by juries: An examination of the “deep-pockets”. Law Society and Review. Reiman, J., & Leighton, P. (2009). The rich get richer and the poor get prison: Ideology, class, and criminal justice. Allyn & Bacon. Tables and Figures Table 1. Questionnaire Version A responses. Questionnaire Version A Respondent Years of Incarceration 1 6 2 14 3 8 4 16 5 9 6 8 7 5 8 12 TOTAL 78 Table 2. Questionnaire Version B responses. Questionnaire Version B Respondent Years of Incarceration 9 5 10 11 11 7 12 6 13 8 14 7 15 6 TOTAL 50 Table 3. Statistical Analysis of participants’ responses. Version Number of respondents Sum of years sentenced Mean Median Mode Variance Standard Deviation A 8 78 9.75 8.50 8.00 15.07 3.88 B 7 50 7.14 7.00 7.00 3.81 1.95 Total 15 128 8.53 8.00 6.00 10.98 3.31 Summary Calculations Calculations for this experiment for the statistical analysis were done using Microsoft© Excel 2007 calculation tools and formulas. These include formulas such as; =stdev([number 1], [number 2]…) for the calculation of standard deviation =average([number 1], [number 2]…) for the calculation of mean =median([number 1], [number 2]…) for the calculation of median =mode([number 1], [number 2]…) for the calculation of mode =var([number 1], [number 2]…) for the calculation of variance Where [number 1], [number 2]… represent values for responses of respondent 1, respondent 2… in terms of years the defendant is sentenced to serve. Appendix Included with this report are the following: 1. Eight Version A questionnaires 2. Seven Version B questionnaires 3. Data tables (Table 1, 2, and 3) 4. Summary Calculations 5. Project Proposal 6. Ethics checklist 7. Raw data 8. Participant consent forms (17) Read More