A Jurors’ Decision
By
Eric Sissom
Introduction to Sociology
February 23, 2007
This analysis is about what happens in the jury room. The documentary is called: "Deadly Decisions: How do jurors decide who should live and who should die?" by Alan Berlow. It was produced in August, 2002 by American RadioWorks. The online link to the story is at http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/deadlydecisions/
People who are called for jury duty are faced with a very difficult decision involving a man or woman’s freedom. Some jurors’ take that duty seriously, some take it lightly. The most difficult case a jury would have to decide would be a murder case. And the more difficult decision would be whether to give someone the death penalty.
Most people don’t want to be called for jury duty. They have to take time off of work and possibly sit through a week long trial or longer. The trial may be boring to some jurors’ and they may miss important elements of the case because they weren’t paying attention.
A lot of jurors’ don’t understand legal terms or the judges’ instructions regarding their duty. The judges’ instructions are rarely tested for readiness to determine people who are able to speak English should understand the judges’ instructions. Also judges’ often refuse to answer jurors’ questions about their instructions leaving more jurors’ confused.
People on a jury often face emotional trauma regarding their decision. They don’t want to see the defendant get away with the crime he/she is accused of if they return with a not guilty verdict and they also don’t want to convict an innocent defendant. The law says a jury must convict if the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. But a lot of times, the jury doesn’t follow those guidelines.
Jurors’ often don’t understand evidence presented at trail or witness testimony. Jurors’ also would convict someone on very little evidence because of what the D.A. says in closing arguments is convincing enough. Jurors’ may also have a closed mind and already decided to convict the defendant before the trail starts.
Another problem with jurors’ is that they may ignore the law and convict someone based on race or the fact that they must be guilty or they wouldn’t be in court. A black defendant is more likely to get convicted and sentenced to death than a white defendant. People on a jury sometimes make racial comments about black defendants and the judge often doesn’t address those issues.
Also, the race of the victim in murder trails may influence a jurors’ decision. If the victim is black, the defendant may not get the death penalty. If the victim is white, there is a higher chance the defendant will get the death penalty. There were 500 prisoners executed between 1977 and 1998 and 81.8 percent of those were convicted of murdering a white person, but the number of blacks and whites murdered nationwide is almost equal.
Prosecutors’ used to use racial profiling for jury selection. Also, prosecutors’ preferred people on the jury were not smart people. The prosecutors’ motives is not for justice or fairness, the prosecutors’ motives is to win the case.
Jurors’ are also concerned if they don’t give a murder defendant the death penalty, they may get paroled before their natural death. When jurors’ ask the judge for the odds of the defendant being set free if they sentence to life, the judge often responds that that’s not up to the jury to decide and offers no further comment. Jurors’ assume that the defendant may have a possibility to be paroled and so they sentence the defendant to death. People on a jury often say if they knew there wasn’t a possibility of parole, they would have sentenced the defendant to life. In my opinion, the jury shouldn’t be concerned if the defendant is paroled. The punishment should match the crime. If it was cold-blooded premeditated first degree murder, then the death penalty is reasonable. If it wasn’t premeditated, then a life sentence is reasonable. If a prisoner with a life sentence is paroled, then the odds are the person is going to be very old when they are paroled. Life sentences are usually 25+ years.
I learned a lot about jurors’ perspectives from listening and reading the transcript of the documentary. I gained an insight into the minds of most jurors’ regarding their difficult decision. There were a few things I didn’t like about the story, such as judges refusing to answer jurors’ questions, which I think the judges should always answer the jurors’ questions; and racial profiling from jurors’ and the lawyers as well. A persons’ race should not influence who should sit on the jury, nor their intelligence. Jurors’ should be composed of average citizens’, some smarter than others, and a mix of race and gender. I actually don’t think the lawyers should decide who is on the jury. I think the court system should just randomly pick twelve people with a mix of gender, race, and intelligence. They could also put at least one defense attorney on each jury because defense attorneys know more about reasonable doubt.
I think the jury in any case should be able to look at the defendants’ record to determine what sentence to hand down. If the person has a lengthy record, then a longer sentence is reasonable. If this is the defendants’ first offense, then a shorter sentence is reasonable.
Jurors’ can be unpredictable. Sometimes, I hear verdicts on the news that the defendant gets convicted and if I was sitting on that jury, I wouldn’t convict in that case, and vice versa. Of course I don’t know the facts of the case at trail, but know enough of the case from what I read in the newspapers and media reports. The fact of the matter is if one jury convicts a defendant, that doesn’t mean another jury will return the same verdict or sentence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Grade: 85/100 | This report was written by Eric Sissom, e-mail: essay@ericsissom.com
Homepage | About Me | College Papers