Are Juries the Most Appropriate Way of Deciding Guilt?

Are Juries the Most Appropriate Way of Deciding criminality?Abigail Louise LinesFrom a mental Perspective, Are Juries the Most Appropriate Way of Deciding a Persons Guilt?The judicial remains within the United Kingdom has a perverse history, with its origins in the church influencing fresh systems and the world rights we dedicate within the court today (Brooks, 2004). Before criminal trial juries were an established concept in the United Kingdom, there were three ways in which the degree of a persons innocence was established a Wager of practice of law, Trial by Battle and The Ordeals (Brooks, 2004). These tests primarily consisted of physical challenges in which God was believed to be the special authority to pass judgement and decide a persons misdeed these trials disregarded human rights, often mixed physical anguish and frequently resulted in the death of the acc employ (Brooks, 2004). It was non until 1219 that individuals accused of a umbrage were allowed to app eal to a control panel, however, individuals who refused to appeal through a jury were subjected to Prison Forte et Dure, where the accused were physically and emotionally tried until they consented to this appeal procedure (Berger, 2011). collectable to the influence of the church and the belief that God was bear on in the finality of guilt, it was r be that jury members in the appeal procedure would have to justify their ratiocinations and have their finding of facts questioned (Berger, 2011). During the early 1300s jurywomans verdicts began to be doubted and those who served on a jury could be challenged as unfit, incompetent or outrage this later led to reforms as to who would be allowed to serve on a jury and an emphasis on mandatory guidelines to follow (Smith Wales, 2000). Modern criminal trials consist of 12-16 individuals selected at random from the electoral register to face their peers they discuss the factors influencing the eccentric person at hand to ultimat ely determine the level of guilt of the involved and to have an sequester verdict (Smith Wales, 1999). Juror capabilities have been questioned in recent years out-of-pocket to a emergent number of G1criticisms of competency, variances between the judges and jurys verdict, and the role of impermissible grounds which is believed to influence jurymans decisions (Smith Wales, 1999 Hans, 2008). To understand and assess whether juries ar appropriate for deciding an individuals guilt, the online essay will explore psychological turn out and criticisms of the jury. It will critically evaluate factors involved in juror decision devising and competency, recognising the role of present-day(prenominal) systems in hindquarters and how these systems whitethorn influence the reliability of jurors. Furthermore, it will investigate alternatives to juries, systems used in countries outside of the UK and improvements to be do to the modern jury.G2G3G4G5G6Juror decision making models ha ve been a point of interest for those critiquing the jury system some(prenominal) empirical studies have created and reviewed models of juror decision making to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of having a jury (Pennington Hastie, 1981). cognitive models of juror decision making are the more comm still accepted approaches, specifically that of the Story good example (Pennington Hastie, 1992). The Story Model assumes that jurors construct stories when deciding on a verdict they will piece together kn induce elements of the case, learn the appropriate verdicts for the individual and then withstand a decision based on the goodness of fit principle (Pennington Hastie, 1992). Although this structure recognises that individuals will use schemas to interpret the case at hand, it relies on this aspect heavily when individuals create the stories (Pennington Hastie, 1992). Due to the level of variance in individuals schemas, this whitethorn be a critique of using jurors in civil and criminal trials due to the differences in how they interpret events within the case it makes it increasingly difficult to come to a unanimous decision, particularly in complex cases wherein there are multiple aggravating and mitigating factors involved (Devine, Clayton, Dunford, Seying Pryce, 2001). The Story Model also takes into account the jurors previous knowledge of the sanctioned system when applying their story to the verdict this again uses real world knowledge court cases which may not derive from reliable sources, much(prenominal) as movies and television shows, which in turn may cause them to cause at a disagreeable or incorrect verdict (Devine, Clayton, Dunford, Seying Pryce, 2001).Few meta-analyses have reviewed models of juror decision making, however, all have arrived at similar conclusions for improvements (Saks Marti, 1997 Devine, Clayton, Dunford, Seying Pryce, 2001). Variables much(prenominal) as knowledge of efficacious terms, clarification of verd ict options, jury personality types, defendant criminal history and the strength of the evidence presented all affect jury decision outcomesG7 in studies without systematically controlling for these factors in studies, it is difficult to firmly accept the level at which jurors are a reliable means of assessing an individuals guilt (Devine, Clayton, Dunford, Seying Pryce, 2001). It is, however, possible to understand improvements to be made to the current jury system from the meta-analyses on decision making models Saks and Marti (1997) explained that jurors express difficulty in concord and applying instructions addicted by the judge. This thought to be due to the specific language used in legal settings, which individuals without training may find difficult to understand it has been suggested that instructions given by judges should be mediated for language which may confuse jurors and be re-written to allow for clarification (Saks Marti 1997 Hans, 2008). G8G9Juror competency is before long monitored within the United Kingdom, through a comparison of verdicts, analysis of verdict patterns, a series of interviews or questionnaires and also through the use of mock jury studies (Hans, 2008). As previously mentioned, there are concerns that jurors may find it difficult within a court setting to understand the specific legal terminology used by judges, however, there is also evidence that jurors may express difficulty in understanding statistical and economic evidence this is of particular concern during complex cases with industry specific language, wherein the jury may not be able to discuss the specific factors regarding the case as they are unable to full comprehend it (ForsterLee, Horowitz, Bourgeois, 1993). There have been studies which disagree with this critique, as findings have shown that Judges and Jurors generally match in their verdicts in cases involving complex language (Eisenberg, Hannaford-Agor, Hans, Mott, Schwab Wells, 2005). Further s tudies exploring individual versus group competence wield reassuring results for those in favour of the judicial system one study exploring theorems of group arrogance undercoat that regard little of the general individual competence, jury members in a larger group are less likely to make mistakes due to being able to deliberate on ideas (Grofman, Owen Feld, 1983). Along with larger group sizes increasing juror competence, several studies have prove that eminence taking and engagement is the ideal way in which juror competence is enhanced jurors that weigh in, take notes and assume an active role in deliberating the final verdict have been shown to have a higher level of engagement with the case, which leads to a higher level of competence (Heuer Penrod, 1994 Forsterlee Horowitz, 1997).Until 1967, the British court required juries to reach a unanimous verdict modern UK courts judges will now accept a bulk vote, however, in some states in the USA the unison regularize is still applied (Sunstein, 2014). It is believed that forcing juries to reach unanimous verdicts decreases the chance that an innocent individual is convicted, and the culpable being acquitted, nonetheless research argues that these errors may actually increase if individuals are forced to reach accord (Feddersen Pesendorfer, 1998). This is believed to be due to jurors attempting to apply strategic behaviour to their decision making fleck disregarding their intuition (Feddersen Pesendorfer, 1998). G10Further criticisms of the unanimity rule consider that forcing unanimous verdicts increases the time and costs of court trials, and also increases the chance of a retrial taking place (Neilson Winter, 2005 McCormick, 2012). While this supports the use of juries for deciding a persons guilt, there is conflicting research which suggests that allowing for a majority verdict may cause uncertainty in the final outcome several studies have found that those forced to make unanimous decisi ons found greater satisfaction and confidence in their decisions, as they entangle as though they had discussed evidence more thoroughly and delayed their voting (Diamond, Rose Murphy, 2012 Sunstein, 2014). Furthermore, OConnor (2003) argued that not having unanimity decreases confidence and reliability within the group if one juror disagrees it is therefore contended that forcing a unanimous decision increases the principle that there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the individual is guilty. G11The role of inadmissible evidence is also a concern within court cases within the United Kingdom due to the increase exposure of online materials which may sway jurors verdicts inadmissible evidence not only includes pre-trial exposure, but also statements and culture revealed in court (Lieberman Arndt, 2000). Certain safeguards are currently in place to see that inadmissible evidence does not affect jurors or their verdicts, such as continuance, a reliance on voir dire to use up biased jurors, deliberations, and admonitions (Lieberman Arndt, 2000). It is believed, however, that these precautions have little effect on juror prejudice and in some cases may backfire (G12Lieberman Sales, 1997 Lieberman Arndt, 2000 Steblay, Hosch, Culhane McWethy, 2006). This reluctance to ignore inadmissible evidence may be explained by several psychological theories such as Belief Perseverance, Hindsight Bias and Reactance system (Lieberman Arndt, 2000). Reactance Theory is the more commonly accepted hypothesis behind this effect as it explains why there is a reluctance with certain forms of evidence it occurs when individuals notion that their freedom is limited and therefore attempt to re-establish this autonomy and gain control (Torrance Brehm, 1968 Lieberman Arndt, 2000).Empirical research has been found to highlight the negative consequences of inadmissible evidence on jurors jurors have been found to issue more guilty verdicts when strong inadmissible evidence is given, and the strength of this evidence also has the ability to influence the overall confidence in their verdict (Sue, Smith, Caldwell, 1973). Furthermore, one study conducted by Thompson, Fong and Rosenhan (1981) found that when given pro-acquittal inadmissible evidence, jurors are less likely to convict the defendant this study also revealed that jurors were able to recognise that their decisions have been influenced by inadmissible evidence. This may be detrimental to the belief that juries are the most appropriate method of deciding an individuals guilt as it demonstrates the reluctance to follow instructions from members of authority it further establishes that although jurors recognise that they are being influenced by inadmissible evidence, they will do little in terms of reconsidering their final verdicts.In light of this research, several psychologists have recommended ways to lessen the impact of inadmissible evidence. One meta-analysis covering 48 studies and 8,474 participants has found that while judicial instructions do not lessen the influence of inadmissible evidence, if a rationale is given for disregarding the evidence, such as it having a negative effect on family members of those implicated, the overall influence of it is rock-bottom (Steblay, Hosch, Culhane McWethy, 2006). Further recommendations include jurors repeatedly sworn in before deliberation begins this allows for an emphasis on the importance of disregarding inadmissible evidence and motivation to follow the law (Lieberman Sales, 1997 Lieberman Arndt, 2000).Research regarding juror decision making has been applied to many stages in legal processes, with courts obtaining information frequently from social scientists to assist in legal battles psychologists are commonly requested in court as near witnesses, in cases such as eyewitness testimonies, to educate the jurors and discipline they competent when deliberating on the trial (Kassin, Ellsworth Smith, 1989 Penning ton Hastie, 1990). Although the role of G13an expert witness calls for those of pop off scientific and technical understanding to assist the jury, there are critics who argue that those who testify as an expert may hold biases claims that researchers appearing in particularly violent or morally ambiguous cases, such as those involving rape or child molestation, may still hold personal values when issue a statement, therefore when these personal values appear they may sway the jury in a certain direction (Loftus Monahan, 1980). In this case it is not the jurys responsibility to counteract this measure, however, the defence, G14prosecution, G15and judge must ensure that counterclaims are issued should bias remarks enter the court (Loftus Monahan, 1980). Nevertheless, this remains a criticism of the practicality of using juries when deciding an individuals guilt. G16G17With these criticisms of the modern jury in mind, some researchers have explored alternatives to juries which inc lude specially qualified jurors and the concept of a non-jury judicatory (Norris, 1993). There are currently few specifications when an individual is called to jury helping, with exceptions including a history of mental health conditions, reduced English speaking or writing aptitude or those who have served a prison house sentence in the last five years due to the limited criteria, researchers have expressed concern that those presiding over important decisions may not possess the acumen to understand the ramifications of sentencing, therefore, minimal educational qualifications should be imposed (Norris, 1993). Norris (1993) has explained that it would be desirable that those serving on a jury hold specialist qualifications especially in complex cases, for example, a bachelors degree. G18Norris (1993) continues by explaining that if minimal educational qualifications are not enough to ensure the competence of jurors, then expert non-jury tribunals may be of use in complex, indus try-specific cases. G19G20G21G22Although juror incompetence is a concern, both of these suggestions appeal for educated jurors to be called more frequently into jury service, especially for more mired cases criticisms of these improvements include the criterion in which we define a complex case, that jurors may no longer be considered peers but superiors, and that some industries are already limited in their personnel, therefore, frequently calling them to jury service may negatively affect their area of work (Hersch, 2003). Henkel (1976) explains that alternatives and improvements should be made, however, until these concerns are resolved smaller changes should be made to ensure the competence of jurors.There are several alternatives to juries which are currently used within former(a) countries, such as the use of religious law which utilises divine doctrines to pass judgement, or a mixed system of civil and religious law which recognises cultural and lawful judgements, and full t ribunals without the use of juries (Frase, 1990). Due to the mix of cultures in the United Kingdom, the reintroduction of religious law would not be advisable to improve the current judicial system. France officially abolished trial by jury in 1941 and now uses six lay judges, and three professional judges to preside over cases in this system there are separate tribunals for how expert the offence is and the type of offence involved (Frase, 1990). While we may look to this structure to improve our own judicial system, one concern would be that they would not represent those from the community on trial, as they are more likely to come from a primarily middle class and legal background (Frase, 1990).To conclude, the criticisms offered in the current essay explain that the current judicial system is not without flaw. The structure currently used within the United Kingdom could make several improvements to increase the degree to which jurors make an appropriate decision, such as specia lists which assist jurors in understanding the language used within the court system, the encouragement of note taking and taking an active role in deliberation, further precautions taken to lessen the impact of inadmissible evidence, and safeguards in place to ensure that prejudices from expert witnesses do not influence jurors in their verdicts. It is advised that insurance policy makers take these issues into account when discussing the current regulations in place. Before we are able to implement improvements and look to other systems for advice, we must appreciate that the current judicial structure has been in the United Kingdom, and influenced other countries systems such as the United States, for a number of years. Although the current essay establishes that juries may not be the more appropriate method for deciding a persons guilt, until realistic alternatives are established and tested, juries will remain to be the only viable option within the United Kingdom.G23Reference sBerger, B. (2011). Judges, Juries, and the History of Criminal Appeals. Law And History Review, 29(01), 297-302. inside 10.1017/s073824801000129x.Devine, D., Clayton, L., Dunford, B., Seying, R., Pryce, J. (2001). gore decision making 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. psychology, Public Policy, And Law, 7(3), 622-727. inside 10.1037//1076-8971.7.3.622.Diamond, S., Murphy, B., Rose, M. (2012). The kettle hole of Law in Real Jury Deliberations Successes and Failures. SSRN electronic Journal, 106(4), 1537. doi 10.2139/ssrn.1641552.Eisenberg, T., Hannaford-Agor, P., Hans, V., Waters, N., Munsterman, G., Schwab, S., Wells, M. (2005). Judge-Jury Agreement in Criminal Cases A Partial Replication of Kalven and Zeisels The American Jury. Journal Of Empirical Legal Studies, 2(1), 171-207. doi 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2005.00035.x.Feddersen, T. Pesendorfer, W. (1998). Convicting the Innocent The Inferiority of solid Jury Verdicts under Strategic Voting. American Politica l Science Review, 92(01), 23-35. doi 10.2307/2585926.Forsterlee, L. Horowitz, I. (1997). Enhancing Juror Competence in a Complex Trial. Applied cognitive Psychology, 11(4), 305-319. doi 10.1002/(sici)1099-0720(199708)1143.0.co2-j.ForsterLee, L., Horowitz, I., Bourgeois, M. (1993). Juror Competence In Civil Trials effects Of Pre-instruction And leaven Technicality. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 14-21. doi 10.1037//0021-9010.78.1.14.Frase, R. (1990). Comparative Criminal Justice as a hunt down to American Law Reform How Do the French Do It, How Can We Find out, and Why Should We fright? California Law Review, 78(3), 539. doi 10.2307/3480841.Grofman, B., Owen, G., Feld, S. (1983). Thirteen Theorems In Search Of The Truth. Theory And Decision, 15(3), 261-278. Doi 10.1007/bf00125672.Hans, V. (2008). Jury Systems virtually the World. Annual Review Of Law And Social Science, 4(1), 275-297. doi 10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.4.110707.172319.Henkel, J. (1976). The Civil Jury-Modif ication Or Abolition. American Business Law Journal, 14(1), 97-109. doi 10.1111/j.1744-1714.1976.tb00442.x.Hersch, J. (2003). Jury Demands and Trials. SSRN Electronic Journal, 447. doi 10.2139/ssrn.487781.Heuer, L. Penrod, S. (1994). Juror Notetaking And Question Asking During Trials A National bowl Experiment. Law And Human Behavior, 18(2), 121-150. doi 10.1007/bf01499012.Kassin, S., Ellsworth, P., Smith, V. (1989). The General Acceptance Of Psychological Research On Eyewitness testimonial A Survey Of The Experts. American Psychologist, 44(8), 1089-1098. doi 10.1037//0003-066x.44.8.1089.Lieberman, J. Arndt, J. (2000). Understanding The Limits Of Limiting instructions Social Psychological Explanations For The Failures Of Instructions To Disregard Pretrial Publicity And Other Inadmissible Evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, And Law, 6(3), 677-711. doi 10.1037//1076-8971.6.3.677.Lieberman, J. Sales, B. (1997). What Social Science Teaches Us About The Jury Instruction Process? P sychology, Public Policy, And Law, 3(4), 589-644. doi 10.1037//1076-8971.3.4.589.Loftus, E. Monahan, J. (1980). Trial By Data Psychological Research As Legal Evidence. American Psychologist, 35(3), 270-283. doi 10.1037//0003-066x.35.3.270.McCormick, R. (2012). The Unanimous State. The Journal Of The Rutgers University Libraries, 23(1). doi 10.14713/jrul.v23i1.1384.Neilson, W. Winter, H. (2005). The Elimination of Hung Juries Retrials and Nonunanimous Verdicts. outside(a) Review Of Law And Economics, 25(1), 1-19. doi 10.1016/j.irle.2005.05.004.Norris, W. (1993). Relevant Conduct Sentencing Hearings as a Substitute for Jury Trials. federal official Sentencing Reporter, 5(4), 193-194. doi 10.2307/20639552.OConnor, S. (2003). William Howard Taft and the Importance of Unanimity. Journal Of Supreme Court History, 28(2), 157-164. doi 10.1111/1540-5818.00061.Pennington, N. Hastie, R. (1981). Juror Decision-Making Models The Generalization Gap. Psychological Bulletin, 89(2), 246-287. doi 10.1037//0033-2909.89.2.246.Pennington, N. Hastie, R. (1990). Practical Implications of Psychological Research on Juror and Jury Decision Making. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(1), 90-105. doi 10.1177/0146167290161007.Pennington, N. Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence Tests of the Story Model for juror decision making. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 62(2), 189-206. doi 10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.189.Saks, M. Marti, M. (1997). A Meta-Analysis Of The Effects Of Jury Size. Law And Human Behavior, 21(5), 451-467. doi 10.1023/a1024819605652.Salerno, J. Diamond, S. (2010). The Promise Of A Cognitive Perspective On Jury Deliberation. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 17(2), 174-179. doi 10.3758/pbr.17.2.174.Smith, G. Wales, C. (1999). The Theory and Practice of Citizens Juries. Policy Politics, 27(3), 295-308. doi 10.1332/030557399782453118.Smith, G. Wales, C. (2000). Citizens Juries and thoughtful Democracy. Political Studies, 48(1), 51-65. doi 10.11 11/1467-9248.00250.Steblay, N., Hosch, H., Culhane, S., McWethy, A. (2006). The Impact on Juror Verdicts of Judicial Instruction to Disregard Inadmissible Evidence A Meta-Analysis. Law And Human Behavior, 30(4), 469-492. doi 10.1007/s10979-006-9039-7.Sue, S., Smith, R., Caldwell, C. (1973). Effects of Inadmissible Evidence on the Decisions of Simulated Jurors A Moral Dilemma. Journal Of Applied Social Psychology, 3(4), 345-353. doi /10.1111/j.1559-1816.1973.tb02401.x.Sunstein, C. (2014). Unanimity and Disagreement on the Supreme Court. SSRN Electronic Journal, 100, 769. doi 10.2139/ssrn.2466057.Thompson, W., Fong, G., Rosenhan, D. (1981). Inadmissible Evidence And Juror Verdicts. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 40(3), 453-463. doi 10.1037//0022-3514.40.3.453.Torrance, E. Brehm, J. (1968). A Theory of Psychological Reactance. The American Journal Of Psychology, 81(1), 133. doi 10.2307/1420824.G1Inserted ofG2Inserted theG3Inserted rG4Inserted ,G5Deleted,G6DeletedinG7 Inserted aG8DeletedeG9DeletedwithG10Deleted,G11DeletedsG12Inserted ,G13Inserted fG14Inserted ,G15Inserted ,G16DeletedfG17DeletedrG18Inserted ,G19Inserted G20Inserted enG21Deleted,G22DeletedatG23Deletedn