In chapter 12 of the course text, the authors review and evaluate the various pieces of evidence stemming from experimental and observational juror and judge research relating to judges’ and jurors’ biases and competence in evidence evaluation, thus providing a comprehensive overview of the advantages and disadvantages of trials by jury. Summarizing the diverse themes that Costanzo and Krauss (2021) touch upon, it is possible to formulate the chapter’s premise as follows: in spite of the imperfections of the jury trial system, including the risks of biases and insufficient subject matter expertise, there are no flawless alternatives to it. The main idea follows logically from a set of supporting points that shed light on the jury system’s limitations and the unwanted consequences of modifications. This paper seeks to synthesize the chapter, apply its key ideas to the issue of bias elimination in jurors, and present a Christ-centered perspective on the chapter’s contents.
Multiple supporting points enable the authors to construct their argument and assess the jury system’s viability with reference to patterns and trends evident from research. Firstly, Costanzo and Krauss (2021) acknowledge that strong and clear court evidence results in jurors’ accurate decisions, whereas in more complex and ambiguous cases, non-evidentiary factors, including leniency bias, prior experiences, assumptions, prejudice based on race, involved parties’ moral characteristics, inadmissible and impeachment evidence, and subject matter experts’ credentials, may influence their verdicts. Secondly, the authors effectively debunk the myth of judges’ immunity to biases and cognitive errors. Based on the available research, they claim that judges do not outperform jurors in the ability to detect and ignore inadmissible evidence while also remaining vulnerable to the majority of cognitive biases affecting jurors and laypersons assessing legal materials in mock cases (Costanzo & Krauss, 2021). Therefore, judges’ and jurors’ cognitive abilities are comparatively analyzed to conclude on both categories’ proneness to subjectivity.
Based on other trends and patterns in psychology research relating to legal decision-making, the authors critically evaluate diverse alternatives to the jury system. Judges, due to their peculiar training and professional obligations, cannot represent the community’s conscience and include the considerations of empathy and community standards in decision-making. Jurors’ arrival at unexpected yet evidence-based decisions does not spur protests or cast a shadow on the entire system’s fairness, whereas judges’ positivity towards unpopular decisions affects the system’s social reputation, making bench trials an imperfect option (Costanzo & Krauss, 2021). The professionalization of jurors and systematically improving their legal knowledge and the understandings of sophisticated evidence, including DNA analysis, forensic ballistics, digital crime scene techniques, and other methods, could be costly and increase biases stemming from jurors’ strengthened interprofessional links (Costanzo & Krauss, 2021). The simplification of evidence evaluation instructions for jurors, preinstructions’ use, and allowing predeliberation jury discussions are other propositions showing some process improvement potential but not devoid of associated challenges (Costanzo & Krauss, 2021). Thus, in the chapter, the researchers argue that helping jurors to perform their duties properly in the current system is essential.
Regarding this information’s applications, searching for the methods to effectively mitigate jurors’ biases is among crucial issues at the confluence of psychology and the legal system’s disadvantages. Presenting the authors’ unique interpretation of research evidence, the chapter’s premise regarding the need to support jurors in making objective decisions instead of contemplating radical alternatives to the current trial jury system finds some indirect support. In a survey of 357 judges in Nevada, Kirshenbaum and Miller (2020) demonstrate that more than 70% of judges fail to alert jurors against biases by means of juror orientation endeavors or improved instructions, but many of them regard this practice as essential to adequate decision-making and wish to adopt it. However, the effects of mandatory anti-bias training for judges or jurors remain unknown, and the expectation that awareness alone will overwrite and eliminate stereotype-based mental associations might be overly optimistic (Kirshenbaum & Miller, 2020; Williams, 2018). Although current studies do not compare and contrast jury awareness-building strategies with more radical bias elimination proposals, such as increased professionalization or even abolishing jury trials, the emphasis on awareness implies this approach’s important role in increasing objectivity in decision-making.
To continue on applications, in partial agreement with the chapter’s premise and supporting points linked with judges’ and jurors’ equal vulnerability to biases, some researchers support court bias reduction strategies aimed at both professional categories simultaneously, thus accepting the issue’s complexity. In his literature review study, Williams (2018) points to awareness-building efforts’ limited effectiveness and argues for introducing the double-blind system in which both judges and jurors can view/hear defendants only if they decide to testify. This proposition is in line with the point that Costanzo and Krauss (2021) make regarding judges’ non-existent or insignificant advantage over jurors in terms of recognizing one’s biases before they impact decisions in the courtroom. Aside from acknowledging judges’ proneness to prejudice, the double-blind trial system can be a protest against the oversimplification of court biases and attempts to reduce their causes to a lack of awareness. Moreover, the reliance on solutions that overemphasize awareness might be ignorant of the ironic process theory in psychology (Costanzo & Krauss, 2021). This idea explains a person’s inherently limited potential in suppressing one’s thoughts and subjective statements.
The chapter problematizes various barriers to impartiality in the courtroom, which makes the text aligned with a Christ-centered biblical worldview perspective on decision-making. For Costanzo and Krauss (2021), jurors’ prejudice based on case participants’ socio-demographic characteristics could run counter to fair and legally accurate verdicts, and jurors should be able to evaluate the strength and relevance of evidence prior to engaging in the deliberation process. As an early source of the moral law, the Bible teaches similar truths about moral “verdicts” and instructs devoted Christ-followers to avoid listening to accusations “unless it is confirmed by two or three witnesses” (New Living Translation Bible, 1996/2021, Timothy 5:19). In Timothy 5:21, in the presence of Jesus Christ, those serving in the church are encouraged to obey instructions “without taking sides or showing favoritism to anyone” (New Living Translation Bible, 1996/2021). A Christ-centered worldview also advocates for self-correction in pursuing justice in lawsuits, which aligns with the principles of jury diversification and juror instruction the book chapter supports (New Living Translation Bible, 1996/2021, Exodus 23:6). Therefore, diverse religious values apply to attitudes to evidence expected of jurors in the U.S. legal system.
On a final note, the assigned reading covers a variety of problematic aspects of decision-making in courts, thus reflecting on ethical challenges in jury trials and whether they reduce the need for the current system’s existence. By synthesizing and systematizing a large body of research, the authors manage to illustrate the complexity of biases and flawed professional judgment in jurors and judges, which explains the absence of one clear strategy to remove all sources of impartiality. With that in mind, the reading makes an important contribution to the debate over improvements to the jury system.
References
Costanzo, M., & Krauss, D. (2021). Chapter 12: Juries and judges as decision makers. In Forensic and legal psychology (4th ed., pp. 295-325). Worth Publishers.
New Living Translation Bible. (2021). Bible Study Tools.
Kirshenbaum, J. M., & Miller, M. K. (2020). Judges’ experiences with mitigating jurors’ implicit biases. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 1-11.
Williams, S. P. (2018). Double-blind justice: A scientific solution to criminal bias in the courtroom. Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality, 6(1), 48-92. Web.