Psychology of Courtroom
The Bill of Rights shows that all defendants in criminal and civil trials can access the trial where jurors pay heed to the testimonies and witnesses, give their verdict after prolonged engagements in discussions. Finally they might decide about some compensatory amounts or render a sentence. This implies that some common citizens are endowed with the power to determine the outcome of others. These citizens, referred as jurors are responsible for deciding the finality of any legal case. Although they should be ideally impartial, often these jurors’ decisions are influenced by extra-legal factors. Stereotyping is another factor which affects the decisions and ratings of the verdict. The courtroom is a place where common people seek fair and impartial implementation of the law. When judges are affected by stereotypes related to gender and race while handling decisions or interpreting the law, the verdict might lead to violation of human rights. In cases of gender oriented violence, equal work opportunities, sexual and reproductive fitness of women, there are chances of gender stereotyping. For instance, jurors might take decision about a rape or case of domestic violence based on her sexual life. This would be a violation of human rights. Wrongful stereotyping should be avoided and state should take ample measures to ensure equality in the eyes of the law.
In fact race influences the verdict of jurors significantly. History states that black defendants are more likely to get harsh sentences compared to whites for the same offence.. The results are even more significant when the race of both the victim and the jurors are known. This is more likely to occur when the case is awkward. Studies have shown that the cognitive resources and racial attitudes of the jurors are also responsible for the racial bias in the courtroom. There is an inclination to give higher verdict-confidence scores in favour of black defendants based on prejudicial judgements. This is more likely for jurors with low working memory capacity apart from their inherent prejudices. In most cases researchers have found that the juror’s race makes a significant impact on the verdict rather than defendant’s race. So white jurors judge black defendants more harshly compared to the judgement given by black jurors to white defendants.
In a study by Sunnafrank and Fontes, participants were shown pictures of black crime which they assumed the criminal has conducted. Significance test was not applied, but the researchers justified by saying that the differences in judgement were larger than necessary. They also discovered that certain crimes were connected with race. Black criminals usually commit crimes like assault, grand theft, mugging, etc, while crimes like rape, counterfeiting, molestation of children and fraud were more than likely to be committed by the whites. For instance a crime like vehicular manslaughter has almost equal probability of being committed by a white and a black. Embezzlement cases found whites being punished more strictly than that of blacks. On other hand, crimes like auto theft would most likely be black. The jurors usually do not decide on culpability with respect to stereotyping.
In the Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes (2011) case, a group of six women filed a case of discrimination against Wal-Mart on grounds of gender discrimination reflected in low pay scales etc. the lawsuit became an instance of class action where the group of women supporting the case was as large as 1.6 million. The US District court for North California approved that the plaintiffs satisfied the statutory class requirements specified under Rule 23 (a)(2) and 23 (b)(2). All these women were employees of Wal-Mart stores and worked since 1998. However the company mentioned that the class size was too big to manage and therefore would increase the cost unusually. The stereotyping was observed when the U. S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, upheld the class certification three times. A basic proposition of equal protection and due process of law refers to the colour of people from different cultures. Racial stereotyping can affect the impartiality of the juror. Such discrimination negates the right of the defendant to be tried on basis of the case’s evidence instead of extraneous issues. For instance a case of sexual assault in Minnesota involved defendants and victims of Hmong descent. Now culturally the men of Hmong had the power to forcefully be involved in sexual interaction with the women who are categorized as submissive. However a Hmong woman could not culturally desire to involve in sexual interaction with anyone other than her spouse.
A case was raised in the U.S. Supreme Court where a Colorado horse trainer was arrested when two young girls identified him as a man who sexually attacked them in a dark restroom at a horse barn. However the defense based their reasons on the short time that the girls got to identify their attackers and the way the police brought the attacker for identification, etc. the jurors initially were unable to reach a decision. The defendant was found guilty on the basis of misdemeanor counts but not on grounds of felony. Later on it was identified that one of the jurors H.C. expressed a bias against the defendant and his alibi on grounds of Hispanic ethnicity and the fact that Mexican men believed they could do as they wanted with women. This was true for nine out of ten Mexican men who were found guilty of being aggressive towards women and young girls.
A potential moderator is the motivation of jurors to control superstitious reactions (MCPR). People who have high MCPR would be inclined more towards a black person. So these people are probably conscious about racial stereotypes and prejudices. People with low MCPR refrain from prejudicial responses and therefore express their negative attitudes towards the blacks. Stereotype suppression instructions are found to be effective immediately after stated but might resume later in their judgements.
References
ACLU, Racial Disparities in Sentencing, (2014), < https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/141027_iachr_racial_disparities_aclu_submission_0.pdf>
Kluwe, Katharina. The Influence of Racial and Crime Stereotypes on Jurors’ Representations of Trial Evidence and Verdict Decisions, (2015), Dissertation, paper 1476, <https://ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2475&context=luc_diss>
Sunnafrank, M. & N.E. Fontes. General and crime related racial stereotypes and influence on juridic decisions. Cornell Journal of Social Relations, (1983)17, 1-15
Totenberg, Nina, Supreme Court Allows Prying into Jury deliberations if racism is perceived, NPR, (2017) <https://www.npr.org/2017/03/06/518877248/supreme-court-allows-prying-into-jury-deliberations-if-racism-is-perceived>
Pillay, Navi. Equality and Justice in the courtroom, Huffington post,(2014) <https://www.huffingtonpost.com/A-View-from-the-United-Nations-/equality-and-justice-in-t_b_4892624.html>
University Counselling Center. Overcoming Racial Stereotypes (2017) < https://ucc.nd.edu/self-help/multicultural-awareness/overcoming-stereotypes/>
WAL-MART STORES, INC. v. DUKES ET AL. Supreme Court of the U.S. (2011) < https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-277.pdf>
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes (2011), < https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/civil-procedure/civil-procedure-keyed-toyeazell/personal-jurisdiction/wal-mart-stores-inc-v-dukes-2/>
Wydra, Elizabeth. Racial Stereotyping Is The ‘Worst Thing’ For Our Criminal Justice System, (2016),< https://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-b-wydra/racial-stereotyping-is-th_b_12458080.html>
