The Concept of Trial by Jury - Essay Example

Jury Evaluations are Unreliable: Describe an argument for what characteristics a jury should have to enhance their final evaluation The concept of trial by jury is basic to most legal systems that are based upon the English legal system. The idea that a person should be tried by "a jury of his peers" rather than by a King, Judge or some either biased authority is one of the founding stones of democracy. It is based on the concept that twelve ordinary men and women, without any particular legal training or even aptitude, are better at determining the fate of an accused (within a criminal case) or the supposed wrongs of a Plaintiff (in a civil case) than other specifically trained to do so. But considering the complexity of many trials today - especially with the advances made in forensic science and the complexity of many civil trials, severe doubts regarding the efficacy of the jury system have been made. First of all, it is correct to consider whether a jury can in fact be "objective", especially when there has been a lot of pretrial publicity. Many studies have documented adverse effects of pre-trial publicity on juror decision making (Linz & Penrod, 1992; Otto, Penrod & Dexter, 1994; Ogloff & Vidmar, 1994; Studebaker & Penrod, 1997). These studies point out that jurors do not exist in a vacuum and are likely to have some opinion of a well-known case before they enter the courtroom. In many ways this can be linked to the ideas of groupthink. Just as the jury may be influenced by what the public outside supposedly 'thinks' regarding a case - usually influenced by the media - so as a whole they may come to conclusions based upon a kind of consensus feeling rather than rational thought. This type of situation has been called "groupthink". Janis Irving has created a perhaps more sober definition in which she describes groupthink as "a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action" (Irving, 1972). There are various interpretations and analyses of the practical results of groupthink that have occurred over the years. In the original article in which the term groupthink was postulated, Whyte described group think in the following way: We are not talking about mere instinctive conformity - it is, after all, a perennial failing of all mankind. What we are talking about is a rationalized conformity - an open, articulate philosophy which holds that group values are not only expedient but right and good as well. (Whyte, 1952) (emphasis added) One way of improving jury decisions, and thus making them more reliable, would be to actively educate juries on the dangers of groupthink before a trial starts. Just as their knowledge of the case, predisposition towards certain verdicts, experience of this type of crime/action are often tested through the process of voir-dire, so juries could be taught in a short workshop on the problems of groupthink and how to avoid them before the trial begins. There are various interpretations and analyses of the practical results of groupthink that have occurred over the years. Some, such as McCauley (1987) have concentrated on some of the more ominous sides of the tendency in which individuals may be swayed into ways of behaving that they would not otherwise consider. For example, extreme cases of groupthink can often be found within various religious cults, sometimes leading to disastrous and tragic consequences such as the mass suicides at Jonestown or of the Heaven's Gate group. These are thankfully rare examples of an extreme example of groupthink in which what may be a powerful good is turned into a destructive negativity because of the pathological nature of those who are leading the groupthink. Other cases of groupthink have been found within organizations of some of the most intellectual and highly educated people (who would not be expected to be easy 'followers' as were the mostly uneducated of Jonestown) who gradually become mired in a groupthink in which possible dangers of certain courses of action are not considered. One fascinating study of such a dynamic occurred of NASA's decision to launch the shuttle Challenger even though many advised against it (Vaughan, 1996). Here the members of the groupthink (NASA) had fallen into an arrogant state of believing that they could do no wrong, and so continually ignored warnings if they came from the outside, while giving too much credence to reassurance if it came from the inside. The result was the explosion of the Challenger. Of course one of the problems inherent within a jury trial, which is also one of its virtues when looked at in a different way is the fact that their decision nearly always needs to be unanimous. Some degree of compromise of original decision and persuasion regarding the final verdict is an inevitable part of the process. Juries are likely to continue the adversarial tone that has been set within the courtroom by the Prosecution and Defense: the trial is regarded as an argument rather than a search for the truth. The Jury is often required to choose between two contrasting stories and/or arguments. The jury has been situated, often for a long period of time, within a confrontational environment - it is not surprising that they take such an attitude into the jury room (Lahey, 2002). If the proceedings of the average courtroom were founded more upon co-operation than on confrontation then the jury results would probably be more accurate. As numerous researchers have shown, human decisions, especially when made within groups, are more accurate when made in a cooperative and supportive environment rather than a confrontational one (Bond, 1996). But it is unlikely that courtroom procedures will be changed from a confrontational to a cooperative one anytime soon. One way of ensuring that less open conflict rather than discussion occurs in the jury-room is to give juries clear instructions regarding the law, what facts they are to consider and how to come to their verdicts. If juries are unsure of their exact task they are more likely to come to a decision based upon an emotional, random or groupthink type of model rather than one based upon careful rationality. One of the problems regarding such clear instructions is the fact that the law is often very obtuse, and at times totally illogical and counter to common sense. Take for example the law covering whether a defendant is "insane" or not at the time a crime is committed. There are three basic definitions of insanity at work: those in common parlance, those offered by the mental health profession and that adhered to by legal authorities. Surprisingly, common parlance and the mental health profession tend to agree on what is insane: if a behavior goes so far beyond the norm then it must be a product of insanity. Yet the legal community suggests a different standard - Jefrrey Dahmer, who killed and then ate his victims, tried to turn them into zombies and had a shrine to the them made of human skulls, was regarded as "sane" by the legal world because he did not fit very strict guidelines of "knowing the difference between right and wrong". The relevance for this to jury decisions is that the legal world often appears to exist in some Alice in Wonderland-like world in which ordinary common sense does not mean anything. A man who attempts to make zombies and who regularly makes stews of his victims must be insane, but the legal community denies it. In this case, many juries simply reject the whole rationale of the legal process and decide the case based upon their own biases. The acquittal of OJ Simpson twelve years ago and the recent mistrial in the murder case against Phil Specter are examples of such "jury nullification". The legal system needs to take note of such rebellion against the often absurd set of standards that are set by the courts. A controversial but legitimate policy would be to have some kind of an education test in order to be able to serve on a jury. Thus if all juries were required to have, for example, at least a Bachelor's degree, then at least some kind of critical thinking skills could be inferred within the potential jury pool. The more educated a person is the less likely they are to use pure emotion or bias to decide a case. These are very general principles, but one backed up by research (Lahey, 2002). Also, with the increased complexity of many cases, a higher educational attainment would at least make it more likely that the jury would understand what was occurring in the courtroom. Thus it is unlikely that a person who failed to graduate from high or secondary school would be able to understand the intricacies of a case involving white-collar fraud or one that is based on arguments regarding DNA analysis. Another explanation for jury decisions being based upon a kind of group ignorance rather than individual thought may be the socialization that most people receive in modern countries. This relates to the need to keep the various aspects of the personality which society feels should be kept in check. Freud divided the human psyche into the ego, the superego and the id. The id is the instinctive part of the individual which always seeks its own desires to be immediately met. In many ways this is the most 'selfish' part of the human being that is 'civilized' during the process of being brought up. Interestingly, it is this aspect of the psyche that might lead to more honest and individual jury decisions. But it is the superego, the aspect of the psyche which is most socialized and involves a public conscience that is involved with the jury process. Within the superego the personal wants, desires, or in the case of the jury, individual decision-making, is subsumed within the need to make a consensus. So, ironically, the very features and characteristics that on the surface would appear to make someone an ideal candidate for a jury:- being law-abiding, a responsible member of society, dominated by their superego - make them likely to merely go along with the group in order to come to a decision. Of course this is a virtually impossible situation to remedy because society cannot have people ruled purely by the ego/id on their juries - mainly because these are the very people who tend to be on trial rather than being in the general public. However, juries should be told that they should come to their own individual decision and that this is in fact their duty. Just because they may disagree with the others within the jury does not mean that they are somehow wrong. Indeed, if the rest of the jury has come to their decision too quickly or without very much thought, the one or two jurors who are more thoughtful may need to persuade the others, as in the famous story of Twelve Angry Men. To conclude, it seems difficult to develop ways of making jury decisions more accurate without transforming the jury system. The fact that more than 95% of defendants within criminal cases are found guilty either shows a remarkably accurate process of charging suspects or the propensity of juries to believe the police/prosecution over the defense (Penrod, 1990). Very complex civil cases, especially involving businesses, really should require a certain knowledge on the part of the juries. Without this, the decision is made based upon pure emotion and/or a consideration of the argumentation skills of the various lawyers rather than upon a rational weighing of the facts. Justice is not served if the jury system is not regarded as fair and if its decisions are not regarded as logical and correct. Some tinkering with the qualifications needed to get on a jury could occur without changing the basic principle of a person being tried by a jury of their peers. ___________________________ Works Cited Baron, RS. "So Right It's Wrong: Groupthink and the Ubiquitous Nature of Polarized Group Decision Making". Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 37, p. 219-253. 2005. Bond, R. Smith, PB. (1996) Culture and Conformity: a meta-analysis of studies using Asch's line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119. 111-137 Esser, James. "Testing the Groupthink Model: effects of Promotional Leadership and Conformity Predisposition" Social Behavior and Personality, p.31-42. 2001. Freud, Sigmund. Major Works, OUP, Oxford: 1989. Irving, Janis. (1972)Victims of Groupthink. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York: Lahey, Benjamin. (2002). Essentials of Psychology. McGraw Hill, New York. Linz, D., & Penrod, S. (1992). Exploring the First and Sixth Amendments: Pretrial publicity and jury decision making. In D. E. Kagehiro & W. S. Laufer (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology and Law, (pp. 1-20). New York: Springer-Verlag. McCauley, Clark. "The Nature of Social Influence in Groupthink: Compliance and Internalization". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol 57. p. 250-260. 1987. Neck, Christopher. Manz, Charles. "From Groupthink to Teamthink: Toward the Creation of Constructive Thought Patterns in Self-Managing teams". Human Relations, vol. 47, #8, 929-952. 1994. Ogloff, J. R. P., & Vidmar, N. (1994). The impact of pretrial publicity on jurors: A study to compare the relative effects of television and print media in a child sex abuse case. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 507-525. Otto, A. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1994). The biasing impact of pretrial publicity on juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 453-470. Studebaker, C. A., & Penrod, S. D. (1997). Pretrial publicity: The media, the law, and common sense. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 428-460. Vaughan, Diane. The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA. University of Chicago Press, Chicago: 1996. Whyte, William. (1952) "The Social Psychology of Groupthink." Fortune Read More