“Death qualified juries” in the United States are seen very different that regular juries. During the voire dire, which are simply the several procedure that are connected with jury trials, the jurors are asked about capital punishment and how they view it. A person who is deemed “death qualified” must be ready and able to consider the death penalty or life in prison, if they cannot do this then they are not qualified.
With all of these stipulations for “death qualified” jurors some people view this as making the jury more biased towards the verdict of guilty than a typical jury. It’s often viewed as unrepresentative of the surrounding community as well. The defense against this is the idea that killing is still deemed very wrong in society and therefore should be received much harsher and therefore the jury will be more inclined or biased towards the worse sentences.
…show more content…
Looking through some research I was able to find some information about some hypothesis that have since been confirmed, “(1) jurors excluded because of their inability to impose the death penalty are more attitudinally disposed to favor the accused than are non-excluded jurors; (2) excluded jurors are more likely to be black or female than non-excluded jurors; and (3) excluded jurors are more likely to actually acquit the accused than are non-excluded jurors (Finch, Ferraro).” In the supreme court case Lockhart v. McCree the supreme court was given results of empirical research showing the effects of a “death qualified jury”. The Supreme Court ruled that the process of selecting the jurors does not in fact create an unfair bias towards the verdict of
While having a judge may seem like it is more effective, while calculating time spent on the case, money used, and the education in the field of justice that a judge has, using a trial by jury is the best way to preserve the American ideal of democracy. In the Jury system mini Q document F, Mark twin mentions that the jury system doesn’t want educated people because they would make the trial too easy for one side. Rather than insulting the jury system it seems like this is more of a good thing because it shows that the jury system doesn’t want people who know too much about the subject already and could sway the decision based solely on their bias. Another way that the system is fair is the fact that rather than having one judge decide the fate of a person, rather it is 12 other citizens that have no ties to the person. In the Jury system mini Q document B The letter states “a reasoned and professional judgment should be replaced by blanket verdicts or pretty well any twelve men and women … I had taken my leave of sense.” While this man is insulting the jury system what he says should still be looked at. The people that come together for a jury will have much less bias towards the accused person that a judge who has either seen the person before, or could just not be looking at it with multiple points of
Despite the efforts of lawyers and judges to eliminate racial discrimination in the courts, does racial bias play a part in today’s jury selection? Positive steps have been taken in past court cases to ensure fair and unbiased juries. Unfortunately, a popular strategy among lawyers is to incorporate racial bias without directing attention to their actions. They are taught to look for the unseen and to notice the unnoticed. The Supreme Court in its precedent setting decision on the case of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), is the first step to limiting racial discrimination in the court room. The process of selecting jurors begins with prospective jurors being brought into the courtroom, then separating them into smaller groups to be seated in the jury box. The judge and or attorneys ask questions with intent to determine if any juror is biased or cannot deal with the issues fairly. The question process is referred to as voir dire, a French word meaning, “to see to speak”. During voir dire, attorneys have the right to excuse a juror in peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges are based on the potential juror admitting bias, acquaintanceship with one of the parties, personal knowledge of the facts, or the attorney believing he/she might not be impartial. In the case of Batson v. Kentucky, James Batson, a black man, was indicted for second-degree burglary and receipt of stolen goods. During the selection of the jury the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to strike out all of the four black potential jurors, leaving an all white jury. Batson’s attorney moved to discharge the venire, the list from which jurors may be selected, on the grounds that the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges violated his client’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to have a jury derived from a “cross-section of the community”(People v. Wheeler, 583 P.3d 748 [Calif. 1978]). The circuit court ruled in favor of the prosecutor and convicted Batson on both counts. This case went through the courts and finalized in the U.S. Supreme Court.
One of the most intense group task experiences in the United States is that of serving on the jury of a death penalty case. This forces a group of complete strangers to come together and determine the fate of another’s human beings life. The court case of the State of Ohio v Mark Ducic, was of no exception. Ducic a 47 year old drug addict white male, was accused of committing a double homicide. In accordance with Ohio state law, murdering more than one individual is considered a mass murder and therefore the accused is subject to the possibility of the death penalty. Ducic’s victims included Barbara Davis, his domestic partner and drug addict, as well as a drug user that Ducic was an acquaintance with. The death of Davis was at first believed to be due to an overdose, but police informants identified Ducic’s voice on a recording claiming that he killed her. The other victim, the drug addict, was thought to be eliminated by Ducic for fear that he would inform the police that he killed Davis. Investigators believed that Ducic gave both victims a deathly amount of drugs that would make it appear as though they both simply overdosed. Ducic was found guilty on both occasions, yet a second trial in regards to his sentencing had to occur and another hearing had to be conducted on whether or not to remove the death penalty.
... differently depending on what their personal biases and prejudices are. This shows that just because the jury could not successfully sentence her to the death penalty, it does not mean that she in undeserving.
In the United States, jury trials are an important part of our court system. We rely heavily on the jury to decide the fate of the accused. We don’t give a second thought to having a jury trial now, but they were not always the ‘norm’.
A study of race and jury trials in Florida published last year in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, found that “conviction rates for black and white defendants are similar when there is at least some representation of blacks in the jury pool.” But all-white juries are a very different story—they convict blacks 16% more often than they convict whites (2).
A jury is a panel of citizens, selected randomly from the electoral role, whose job it is to determine guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented. The Jury Act 1977 (NSW) stipulates the purpose of juries and some of the legal aspects, such as verdicts and the right of the defence and prosecution to challenge jurors. The jury system is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society as members of the community ultimately decide whether the person is guilty or innocent. The creation of the Jury Amendment Act 2006 (NSW) enabled the criminal trial process to better represent the standards of society as it allowed majority verdicts of 11-1 or 10-2, which also allowed the courts to be more resource efficient. Majority verdicts still ensure that a just outcome is reached as they are only used if there is a hung jury and there has been considerable deliberation. However, the role of the media is often criticized in relation to ensuring that the jurors remain unbiased as highlighted in the media article “Independent Juries” (SMH, 2001), and the wide reporting of R v Gittany 2013 supports the arguments raised in the media article. Hence, the jury system is moderately effective in reflecting the moral and ethical standards of society, as it resource efficient and achieves just outcomes, but the influence of the media reduces the effectiveness.
The author omits critical information about many factors, which could explain the higher rate of severe sentences for African Americans than White Americans other than racial injustice. The article, “Possibility of Death Sentence Has Divergent Effect on Verdicts for Black and White Defendants” by Jack Glaser, et al. provides an excellent analysis of the racial disparities that Cholbi mentions. Glaser provides clear evidence of how factors such as sentence severity and jury selection can influence sentencing. The authors also discuss how African Americans are though of when discussing crime and how African Americans are considered like apes. However the article discusses how these assumptions comply with African-American behavior; “There is also evidence that in the context of criminality, there is a relatively strong association between Black men and apes. It follows that insofar as Black people may be viewed as being less worthy of humane (or even human) treatment, concerns over punishment severity (even death) would be less consequential” (Glaser et al. 541). The authors stimulate an experiment through mock jurors and found no concrete evidence to suggest banning capital punishment due to racial discrimination. Therefore Glaser et al. does a superior argument when compared to
576). In 12 Angry Men, the jury that is voting is a death-qualified jury and all but one wants to convict. They are more prejudiced towards this Hispanic boy who could very well be innocent. In Young’s (2004) study, he proved that death-qualified juries were more likely to have prejudiced views of minorities that they are more willing to convict. In this study, he took a poll that resulted in the death-qualified juries saying that it is worse to let the guilty go free than to convict an innocent person. In both the film and Young’s (2004) study, it is shown that death-qualified juries are very quick to convict when they have someone’s life in their
Our current trial by jury system was originally adopted from Anglo-Saxon English common law. Prior to juries, the United States had much more rudimentary methods that were in affect, such as bench trials. A bench trial consists of solely the judge determining the final verdict, versus a jury possessing that responsibility. Proceeding with a trial by jury assures that there will be a margin of error, simply due to the fact that the jurors are human, and are susceptible to human fallibility. Whether the jury is cognizant of it or not, emotions such as pre-determined bias and favoritism can impede or bring the case to a halt all together. According to Andy Leipold, a professor emeritus at the University of Illinois College of Law, the number of jury trial conviction rates have increased from 75 percent in 1946 to 84 percent from 1989 to 2002 (Krause). This sudden anomaly can be attributed to the influx of uneducated jurors, the increased cost of proceeding to trial, and improper juror selection.
Although the United States system is based on the connotation of innocent until proven guilty and justice being blind to things such as race, ethnicity or social class (Kornblum & Julian), evidence proves otherwise. Racially discriminatory sentencing in non-capital cases demonstrated that young, black and Latino males receive a much harsher sentence, especially if unemployed compared to white offenders. The race of the victim also dictates the sentence. If the victim is white, than the black offender is much more likely to receive a harsher sentence than blacks who commit crimes against blacks. If the murdered victim is white, the offender has higher probabilities of receiving the death penalty (The Sentencing Project). Race is an indisputable factor in the sentencing process and teaches that black lives are not as important as those of
It has been demonstrated the one in seven people, or fourteen percent, who are put on death row were innocent of their convicted crimes. The American society is outraged when an innocent person is killed, the fourteen percent would not have to suffer if the death penalty was illegal throughout the country. There is no way to tell how the more one thousand people, possibly more, executed since 1976 may also have been innocent, courts do not generally entertain claims of innocence when the defendant is dead. Wrongful convictions and executions can be made from many of the following factors: mistaken eyewitness testimony, faulty forensic science, fabricated testimony or testimony from jailhouse informants, grossly incompetent lawyers, false confessions, police or prosecutorial misconduct and racial bias. Many of the people who are resentenced from death to life imprisonment may be innocent and rotting behind bars, since without the imminent threat of death, no one will take up their case to exonerate them. Along with the con of the death of innocent people, the elimination of the death penalty proves as a more effective way to deter
The death penalty or capital punishment is a controversial topic that many people like to ignore, or put on the back burner. The death penalty is a sentence, while capital punishment is the actual execution. It is wrong and immoral. In extreme crime cases where the death penalty would be considered, life without parole is the better consequence. Innocent people could, and have been put to death wrongfully. Racial bias, along with multiple other problems that this consequence holds shows why this sentence is an issue. Despite many flaws this sentence holds, states still actively use it. As of now, there are thirty-one states with the death penalty. The conversation is split between two groups. The people who want to abolish that sentence, and
For instance, the 1972 Furman V. Georgia case abolished the death penalty for four years on the grounds that capital punishment was extensive with racial inequalities (Latzer 21). Over twenty five years later, those inequalities are higher than ever. The statistics says that African Americans are twelve percent of the U.S. population, but are 43 percent of the prisoners on death row. Although blacks make up 50 percent of all murder victims, 83 percent of the victims in death penalty cases are white. Since 1976 only ten executions involved a white defendant who had killed a bl...
There are many false impressions floating around through American society concerning the death penalty; this paper hopes to clarify some of the more prominent, noticeable ones.