Research Critique After reading the article, Shaping Juror Attitudes: Effects of Requesting Different Damage Amounts in Personal Injury Trials, one might notice the elements of research conducted throughout this study, focusing on the many strengths and weaknesses. The following research critique will discuss the fundamentals of the study, the quality of validity and reliability, strengths and limitations as well as future recommendations. Malouff and Schutte (1989) conducted their study in order to examine the relationship between the amount of money requested for damages in personal injury trials and the amount of money awarded. After conducting a meta-analysis, they realized that researchers have previously found a relationship with the extremeness of a persuasive message and change in attitude. What had not been researched is whether such a message could be applied to a specific situation such as personal injury trials. Therefore, Malouff and Schutte (1989) hypothesized that, (a) at least some levels the simplest possible relationship exists between the amount requested and amount awarded, namely, that the more requested by the attorney for the injured person or plaintiff, the more the jurors would be awarded, and (b) this relationship would be found regardless of the specific facts of a case, including the injuries sustained and the sex and ethnic group of the plaintiff. That is, the amount the jurors would award depends on the amount requested by the attorney for the injured. As a result, the amount requested by the attorney for the injured is the independent variable since it is the amount altered by the researcher and the dependent variable is the amount the jurors would award. In order to conduct... ... middle of paper ... ...they should be cautiously accepted. However, the study can be replicated in order to prove or falsify the findings. There are many ways in which this study could be replicated and improved. To begin with, the use of subjects who were actual jurors may be beneficial in order to get a group that actually represents the population in question. It would also be a good idea to use lengthy testimonies rather than summaries because it is difficult to assume what is appropriate to remove and what may actually affect the results of the test if removed. All in all the researchers were able to confirm their hypothesis and open the opportunity for more future research. References: Malouff, J., & Schutte, N. S. (1989). Shaping juror attitudes: Effects of requesting different damage amounts in personal injury trials. The Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 491-497.
The American Jury system has been around for quite some time. It was the original idea that the framers of the constitution had wanted to have implemented as a means of trying people for their illegal acts, or for civil disputes. The jury system has stood the test of time as being very effective and useful for the justice system. Now it has come into question as to if the jury system is still the best method for trials. In the justice system there are two forms of trials, one being the standard jury trial, where 12 random members of society come together to decide the outcome of something. The other option would be to have a bench trial. In a bench trial, the judge is the only one deciding the fate of the accused. While both methods are viable
The movie Runaway Jury starts with a shooting in a business office. The movie then continues to people receiving jury summons and people taking pictures of them. It goes on to show Rankin Fitch and the defense committing electronic surveillance during the jury selections. This movie shows how Fitch and the defense attempt to influence the jury to vote for the defense. The movie continuously shows a person by the name of “Marlee” who talks to Fitch and Rohr trying to persuade them to pay her in order for the jury to be “swayed” their way. “Marlee” is Nick Easter’s girlfriend. As the movie progresses, the viewer realizes that Nick was pretended to get avoid jury duty in order to secure a spot in the jury. The movie ends with the jury voting against the gun company and then Nick and “Marlee” blackmailing Fitch with a receipt for $15 million and they demand that he retire immediately. They inform him that the $15 million will benefit the shooting victims in the town of Gardner.
Seymour Wishman was a former defense lawyer and prosecutor, and the author of "Anatomy of a Jury," the novel "Nothing Personal" and a memoir "Confessions of a Criminal Lawyer." "Anatomy of a Jury" is Seymour Wishman's third book about the criminal justice system and those who participate in it. He is a known writer and very highly respected "person of the law." Many believe that the purpose of this book is to put you in the shoes of not only the defendant but into the shoes of the prosecutor, the judge, the defense lawyer and above all the jury. He did not want to prove a point to anyone or set out a specific message. He simply wanted to show and explain to his readers how the jury system really works. Instead of writing a book solely on the facts on how a jury system works, Wishman decides to include a story so it is easier and more interesting for his readers to follow along with.
In America, every individual has the right to a fair trial, but how fair is the trial? When an individual is on trial, his or her life is on the line, which is decided by twelve strangers. However, who is to say that these individuals take their role seriously and are going to think critically about the case? Unfortunately, there is no way to monitor the true intentions of these individuals and what they feel or believe. In the movie, Twelve Angry Men, out of the twelve jurors’ only one was willing to make a stance against the others, even though the evidence seemed plausible against the defendant. Nevertheless, the justice system is crucial; however, it is needs be reformed.
Jurors opinions can be influenced by an emotional testimony. Deborah W. Denno’s article Neuroscience, Cognitive Psychology, and the Criminal Justice System is the Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law’s publication of a panel at the 2009 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools. The panel had three goals: “examine the interrelationship between neuroscience and substantive criminal law; to incorporate criminal procedure more directly into the examination in a way that past investigations have not done; and to scrutinize cognitive bias in decision-making,” (Denno
In the play “Twelve Angry men”, the story line presents a variety of perspectives and opinions between twelve very different men. Some are more likely to be pointed out as prejudice, and others are more focused on reaching fair justice. Clearly, it is quite difficult for different people to vote ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ in unity when coming to a fair decision. In all of the twelve jurors, I have chosen Juror 3 and Juror 8 for contrast and comparison. I believe that Juror number 3 is a very opinionated man, with more differences than similarities comparing with Juror number 8.
Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.
Today juries are much more diverse. Men, women, and people from diverse backgrounds are called to jury duty. Although the origin of the jury system is not clear, history has shown that William the Conqueror from Normandy introduced a similar system to England around 1066 CE (Judiciary of Vermont 1). After the American Revolutionary War, the jury system became the American ideal of justice. This essay will explore the history of the American jury system and illustrate how it has evolved over the course of the American history.
In this day and age anyone can write anything and put it on the internet for everyone to read. You have to be diligent in separating fact from fiction. If you are skeptical you may have to do your own research to see where the information originated. Do not believe everything you read just because it states it was from a study as it may not be reliable or truthful. Both of these studies had interesting information, however since they both were lacking sufficient data it was hard to determine if the studies were completely honest and adequate or not.
Stevenson, D 2012, The function of uncertainty within jury systems, George Mason Law Review, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 513-548, viewed 6 May 2014, .
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.
For my research paper I decided to observe at the North Justice Center in Fullerton, CA for the morning session. My goal entering there was to watch the process of a criminal trial since I felt that would be the most interesting and would allow me the opportunity to witness all the working parts of our justice system in action. While waiting for the criminal trial to open its doors and start, I managed to come across a post- arraignment court, where I was able to watch a different side of our criminal justice system. This is the side that enforces the punishment and makes sure that restitution is paid for whatever crime was committed. By far the most interesting thing I took from this experience was the differences in how the judges conducted themselves in their courtrooms and the amount of discretion that they were allowed to use. For this paper I will be going over what I observed in both the post-arraignment court and the criminal trial and analyze my findings in a sociological context.
The book Acquittal by Richard Gabriel states, “juries are the best judges in the system. They are not elected, they don't have the high-powered microscope of appellate review or the stern, disapproving-schoolmarm precedent looking over their shoulder, and they have no interest in the outcome of the case.” For this reason, we can come to the conclusion that the use of juries in a trial is the best for all involved in the legal system. While juries, “are the best judges in the system”, lawyers, jury consultants, and jury scientists are the reasons they are viewed this way. It is their job to make sure that not only their client, but everyone has a fair and unbiased trial.Making sure that “the best judges in the system” are fair and unbiased takes a lot of planning, research, and effort. You must research the jurors, understand how they think, what their morals are, and how they would view this case. “It is a constructed reality, cobbled together by shifting memories of witnesses, attorney arguments, legal instructions, personal experiences, and beliefs of jurors.”(Gabriel
The article, “Trial Lawyers Cater to Jurors’ Demands for Visual Evidence,” written by Sylvia Hsieh stresses the importance of visual evidence. Hsieh writes
The quietness and patience juror 8 displayed caused tension amongst the other jurors creating careful and adequate (Flouri & Fitsakis, 2007, p.453) deliberations. Juror 8 's circle of influence (Covey, 2013) directly influenced the other jurors’ circle of concern (Covey, 2013) when forcing them to question their thought process. Juror 8 chose a collaborative negotiation (Budjac Corvette, 2007, p. 63) method when deliberating with the other jurors immediately handing down guilty verdicts for the defendant. Furthermore, juror 8 used his ACES to help the other jurors cross the creek (Budjac Corvette, 2007, p.