Posts
Ellsworth's article discusses the processes that are gone through by the average jury and examines how true these are in practice to our ideal of due process. The study involves looking at several mock juries, and examining how they come to reach decisions.
The phases of this study I thought were very interesting, along with the analysis of each. The foreman selection process was kind of surprising to me, because I actually was unaware that it was so informal a process as it apparently is. It's really nothing more than somebody saying "I'll do it," and the others at the table accepting it. Then came the interesting part, where their actual deliberation was examined. It was interesting that while by and large there were no errors of fact among the jurors, there were often disagreements about how the law actually applied and interacted with the defendants and their cases.
While the discovery is interesting, I don't necessarily find it all that surprising, nor do I think it is necessarily helpful to actually changing the process in and of itself. Ellsworth offers little in the way of means to institute change.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree - I think she proved an important point about the fact that convoluted law language might get in the way of a fair trial. People do understand the facts in a trial, but they don't necessary understand the law associated with it (ie, reasonable doubt, first and second degree, and so on). I think we could use some change in making law more palatable and less intimidating so that we can get back to basics -- did the person commit the crime or not? I wish Ellsworth had used her findings to actually show us a solution.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Ellsworth should've provided some kind of solution or something but I still think the results are useful even in just pointing out the extent of legal confusion. This study can then be used to try and change the information juries receive, maybe in the future leading to helping juries have more access to legal definitions and getting all questions answered. Hopefully Ellsworth will take this research a step farther.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to me that other people are so willing to agree as long as someone takes charge. Group mentality is in interesting thing, and even more interesting when looked at in a legal situation. I don't find it surprising though, group dynamics play a role in everything.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny. I read this a week later, and suddenly I have a changed perspective. I guess now I just wonder if I should so quickly condemn Ellsworth for not offering solutions. She did her research, and maybe now it should be somebody else's responsibility to apply that knowledge into practical application. Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteThere is always that smart person, that leader who says something and everyone blindly follows. Law speak is practically a foreign language and at times, it would seem understandable that a jury would have no idea what the law means, so if one person, or a few convincing jurors determined the meaning or the verdict it's not a stretch to say that those confused few would agree. I too always look for solutions from the various authors we read, and I'm often disappointed, but in that same guise, I don't really want sociologists ruling the world, in fact I'd prefer that scientists of all disciplines refrain from ruling it. I feel like nothing would get done. it would be interesting to hear some suggestions though, I mean they couldn't hurt. Just leave the real decisions for the leaders of the world. Just make sure they understand the laws and policies, and don't just follow one smart guy blindly.
ReplyDeleteI would be interested to find out exactly how much of an influence the jury foreman has over the deliberation process and the ultimate outcome . I think that Ellsworth said that their position had little effect over the actual deliberations, but I have trouble believe that who's "in charge" doesn't effect what goes on and I would like to see a study that focuses more on that issue.
ReplyDelete