• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Jury decision making: Discuss the effectiveness of jury decision making.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

JURY DECISION MAKING: DISCUSS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF JURY DECISION MAKING The processes by which a jury in a criminal trail decide whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty can be affected by many case factors. Many of which have been psychologically researched, and proven to have an effect on the verdict given. The main factors that may affect the verdict given by the jury are; exposure to pre-trial publicity about the case, the use of eyewitnesses and the characteristics of the defendant, including the defendants race, attractiveness and accent. These case factors can sometimes, and sometimes not have an effect of the verdict given by jurors. Pre-trial publicity can have a major effect on the decision made by jurors. This can happen before and also can carry on during the trial. Exposure to details portrayed in the media can lead the juror to form biased decisions based on biased or even incorrect media details or they can form their own personal opinions about the case and/or the defendant. An example of this s the trial of footballer Lee Bowyer who was on trial for a r****t attack. The media had a huge effect on this trail to the extent that it had to be dropped due to certain articles in newspapers which could have affected the jury's decision. ...read more.

Middle

Accents to are said to have an effect, for example (Mahoney & Dixon, 1997)found that having a 'brummie' accent was seen as having low status and therefore were more likely to be found guilty out of many accents. Black people with a 'brummie' accent were the most likely to be found guilty out of everyone, regardless of other case factors. Another additional case factor is the use of eyewitness testimony. Research in this field has been dominated by Loftus. Her 1974 study into jury decision making using eyewitnesses the results were as follows: summary one two three No eye witness Evidence from eyewitness, but not challenged Eyewitness evidence, but had poor eyesight 18% 72% 68% % of jurors that found defendant guilty The validity of this experiment can be questioned along with almost every other study involving jury decision making, because practically all use mock setups. The consequences of this are that demand characteristics could affect results. Also the aim of the experiment many also be figured out contributing to this factor. There is also added pressure for the eyewitness evidence to be accepted rather than rejected as the above shows, which all can lead to us questioning the reliability of these studies, and consequently the effectiveness of eyewitness testimony. ...read more.

Conclusion

Check on how others feel * In order to be liked, many people take a position to someone else but a little more extreme Furthermore groupthink can also affect the process of deliberation; this is when it becomes hard for the group to make rational decisions. Symptoms of groupthink include: * Overestimation of the group, including an illusion of invulnerability as well as a firm belief in the inherent morality of the group. * Narrow mindedness, which manifests itself in collective rationalisations and stereotypes of out-groups. * Pressures toward uniformity. This finds expression in self-censorship, an illusion of unanimity, and direct pressure on dissenters. The effects of these factors may be insidious in that group members are not aware of its operation. In conclusion there are many case factors that affect the way a jury comes out with a final verdict, some points such as pre trial media coverage and race seem to dominate the effectiveness of jury decision making, however almost all of it is backed up by studies that are not ecologically valid and so the true effect of these factors cannot be backed up 100%. There are many flaws in jury decision making which has today lead to it being used les and less worldwide. Altaf Korimbocus ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Machinery of Justice section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Machinery of Justice essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    ‘Trial by jury is outdated, expensive and ineffective in ensuring justice’ Analyse arguments for ...

    4 star(s)

    Another plan which would work alongside this unification of the courts is the loss of the defendants' right to choose trial by jury - the decision would either be made by a Magistrate or a District judge. The justification for such dramatic changes is the reduction in cost to the

  2. Describe trial by jury within the English legal system. How effective is trial by ...

    Driving offences previously heard in a jury trial have been made triable only by magistrates. Professor Michael Zander supported this in 1997 on the grounds of inefficiency - due to many cases being changed to guilty plea at the last moment.

  1. Principles on which sentencing decisions are based

    serious as to justify such an approach and the restrictions placed on the offender in the order should reflect the seriousness of the offence. These principles reflect the underlying importance of the dessert approach even in rehabilitation sentencing. 'Dessert' as a principle underlying sentencing has always been very important.

  2. Describe the different aims of sentencing.

    It rehabilitates the offender from the misuse of drugs. It also incapacitates the offender, as the offence was the result of drug abuse; therefore the criminal is less likely to commit an offence if they are not taking drugs. Fines are a common sentence and the fundamental aims of this non-custodial penalty are retribution, reparation and deterrence.

  1. Evaluate the effectiveness of domestic law in protecting children in Australia.

    The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) [incorporating further amendments in 2005] also requires allegations of abuse to be reported to state child protection authorities, again furthering protection of child abuse. This act may also restrict the offender with any children the Family Court deems are at risk from that person in the family household.

  2. Penal Studies for Professional Practice

    Therefore, there is currently no statutory duty on the Probation Service to provide assistance with resettlement (Gelsthorpe 2004, p34). This means that women will not benefit from sentence planning and may be disadvantaged in terms lack of support to deal with issues such as housing, education, employment and financial management (Morgan 2004).

  1. Examine recent trends in the use of custody in respect of juveniles over the ...

    General deterrence is used to send a message to the wider public (as much to the offender him/herself) against undertaking criminal behaviour and centres on magistrates setting examples of how particular crimes will be dealt with by the courts (Pitts, 1999).

  2. Expert Testimony and Its Value In the Justice System

    Wales Land and Environment court, but is also used on a regular basis within the other courts in the territory. The reason it has been so successful in this court in particular is that the Court ?relies extensively on the information, analysis and opinions that experts can provide?.[23] By implementing

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work