Race Colors Judgement Essay

The criminal bonnyice arrangement in the United States is adept of the many places that I believe stereotypes ar formed. For example, Afri sack-Americans make up only 13% of the U. S. population only when check 46% of the inmate population who fork up received sentences of more than(prenominal)(prenominal) than sensation year (Hart, 2006, p. 1). A nonher example of a racial disparity can be seen the percentage of blacks who argon drug users (14%) and those sentenced for drug offenses (53%) (Sentencing Project, 2009 p. 3). More Afro-American men be in prison or jail, on probation or parole then were enslaved in 1850, out front the Civil War began, (Alexander, 2010).However, this is not just a problem within the black community. More than 60% of the wad in prison ar now racial and pagan minorities and three-fourths of all persons in prison for drug offenses are people of color (www. sentencingproject. org). The Bureau of referee Statistics shows, that the the likes oflihood for an African-American or Latino to be imprisoned is, 18. % for African-Americans and 10% for Hispanics, age the likelihood for fairs is 3. 4% (Bureau of arbiter Statistics, 2005). Brennan and Spohn (2009) showed in their plain, The Joint Effects of Offender step on it/Ethnicity and Sex on Sentence Length Decisions in Federal Courts, that African-American males received a significantly longer sentence (93 months) than sinlessness males (86. 2 months) (Brennan & Spohn, 2009). These are just close to of the numbers, which cannot be ignored. An important question to ask why are these racial disparities happening?In the see pureness control boardwoman solidus An investigation of racial prejudice against Black defendants in the American judicature, Sommers & Ellsworth (2001) feature a quote, which, I think, sums up the reasoning for studying dry wash and its effect on juries, it came from one of my favorite movies In our courts, when it is a fair mans word agai nst a black mans, the purity man always wins. Theyre ugly, barely those are the facts of lifeThe one place where man ought to get a square deal is a court inhabit, be he any color of the rainbow, but people afford a way of carrying their resentments right into the jury box (From To Kill a Mockingbird, Lee, 1960, p. 20).The thinking by many social psychologists is Racism still exists in our society today but is no longer endorsed by gruellingcore racist beliefs or overt acts of prejudice (Sommers & Ellsworth, 2003). Instead its a Subtle, implicit, or aversive form of racialism (Sommers & Ellsworth, 2003). Whites in our society are taught to emb expedite egalitarianism (equality) and make a conscious effort to deal non-prejudice, or have non- preconceived idea beliefs. However, that does not mean that they still dont harbor prejudicial attitudes. In a trial setting aversive racial discrimination and race strikingness, or racially charged vs. racially neutral, go pop off and ha nd.Studies have concluded, a trial that is racially charged reminds jurors of their egalitarianism, but in a trial not racially charged a jurors motivation to avoid being prejudice is not triggered instead they argue their racial deflect (Sommers & Ellsworth, 2001). It is the run of the mill trials where juror twistes are displayed. White jurors need to be reminded that they should not have a bias. By reminding them, by a racially motivated incident, jury voir dire, jury instructions before deliberation, and others, White jurors are slight(prenominal) likely to demonstrate racial bias towards an African-American defendant.Jury composition or heterogeneity vs. homogeneity gatherings, is theorized to be a huge factor in overall group finis-making skills. This is particularly important in the jury decision-making sue and verdicts because minorities are underrepresented on a jury. Sommerss study Racial Diversity and Group Decision qualification (2006) concluded, a jury, which h as heterogeneity, rather than homogeneity considers a wider range of perspectives and reading (Sommers, 2006).It was the diversity of the group influence on the White juror more than the executing of the African-American juror in the group (Sommers, 2006). This is not to say that the African-American juror did not perform well. Since many juries are not racially diverse, Whites on a jury whitethorn forget their egalitarian values, may not consider a wider range of perspectives and info, and will spend less time on their decisions. In-group bias is when people show a arduous preference for fellow in-group members and tend to malign out-group members (Sommers & Ellsworth, 2000).doubting doubting Thomas Pettigrew, current investigate Professor of Social Psychology at the University of California, in his 1979 study present that negative airs of in-group members were attributed to situational forces but negative behaviors of out-group members were attributed to inherent disposit ions, which is the opposite from positive behavior attribution (Sommers & Ellsworth, 2000). This is a particularly important theory because juries for criminal trials are taking in facts pertaining to the negative behavior of a defendant who is either from their in-group or out-group.Systematic info affecting is conceptualized as Comprehensive uninflected orientation to inform processing in which perceivers access and audit a great deal of information for its relevance to their judgment business (Tamborini et al. , 2007) heuristic rule processing is conceptualized as A more limited mode of information processing that requires less cognitive effort and fewer cognitive resources than arrogant processing (Tamborini et al. , 2007) Simple stated, heuristic information processing are shortcuts utilise previous knowledge and stereotypes, which influences peoples judgments.During a trial, jurors take in enormous amounts of information and when deliberating they tend to fill in the m issing information with past experiences or stereotypes about certain crimes and criminals. This is not their intention, however it is how people cognitively process information-we put information into or take it out of certain categories. thither are three main research method actings used to study race and its effects on juries (Sommers & Ellsworth, 2003). Archival analysis of actual cases is ideal but in that location are a lot of con shewing variables, which are hard to measure and control statistically (Sommers & Ellsworth, 2003).Another method used is post-trial juror interviews. This method is useful because you are asking direct questions of the jurors, who were part of the substantial trials. However, it is time consuming, has a small sample size, and relies on self-reporting by jurors (which in unreliable) (Sommers & Ellsworth, 2003). The third method is mock juror experiments, which relies on the experimental method of social psychology and allows the experimenters to control the confounding variables (Sommers & Ellsworth, 2003).There are some downfalls to using mock juror experiments as well, such as using college students as participants, written trial summaries, instead of witnessing a real trial, and the decision made by mock jurors have no real consequences (Sommers & Ellsworth, 2003). tally to Sommers and Ellsworth (2003) it is best to use multiple methods. For example compare archival data to mock jury data. As I stated earlier, aversive racism and race boldness (racially charged vs. racially neutral) in trials go hand and hand.Sommers and Ellsworth (both social psychologists) first studied race strikingness in their study, Race in he Courtroom Perceptions of Guilt and Dispositional Attributions (2000). Since the theory of aversive racism (modern or subtle) states, Whites are more motivated to appear non-prejudice when racial issues are salient or prominent. They found that when a trial involves race salience the race of the defendant d id not influence the White jurors (Sommers & Ellsworth, 2000). However, when a trace did not have race salience, the African-American defendants were found to be more guilty, aggressive, and violent by the White juror then the White defendant.This could have a profound effect, since Whites are not caught up in the day to day of racial issues, they may not take notice to the just about subliminal racial issues in a trial. It may cause them to hold adventure back to the more overt form of racism without even consciously knowing they are being racist or displaying their biases. A more recent study, Diversity and Fairness in the Jury System, conducted for the Ministry of Justice Research Series, by Thomas and Blamer (2007) concluded when a trial is racially charged (race salience), disapprobation rates for African-American defendants were lower.However, the conviction rate amidst White jurors and African-American jurors for African-American defendants were no diametric (Thomas & Balmer, 2007) (44% and 43%). In trials that were racially neutral, White jurors had low conviction rates for African-American defendants, while African-American jurors had high conviction rates for White defendants and low conviction rates for African-American defendants (Thomas & Balmer, 2007).This was a very interesting finding because in the Sommers and Ellsworth studies (2000, 2001) African-American jurors showed leniency both in race salience and non-race salience trials. Thomas and Balmer (2007) point out that in the Sommers and Ellsworth study that jurors did not find out cases as part of a jury with any deliberations (Thomas & Balmer, 2007). The results in the Thomas and Blamer study showed that individual jurors had difference conviction rates, but as a jury there was no difference between race salience and non-race salience trails (Thomas & Blamer, 2007).None of the juries (there were 8 in all) in the Thomas and Blamer (2007) study convinced the White defendant, The juri es in England and Wales where this study took place have the kindred makeup as juries in the United States, majority White (Thomas & Balmer, 2007). That makes a nice segway into my next theory of jury composition because it appears that they dynamic of a racially mixed jury attended ensure individual biases were not allowed to ordain verdicts (Thomas & Balmer, 2007).Justice Thurgood Marshall said, Diverse juries enjoy wider ranging discussions because White and Black jurors bring different experiences and perspectives to the jury room (Sommers, 2006). Not only do African-American jurors bring different experiences but also, as we saw in the Thomas and Balmer (2007) study a racially mixed jury might help to ensure individual biases are not allowed to dictate verdicts. Again, referring to a study by Sommers (the leading researcher in this field) in which he specifically studies The multiple effects of racial composition on jury deliberations (Sommers, 2006).Having African-Americans (or minorities in general) on a jury can bring two different types of diversity-deep-level diversity and surface-level diversity (Sommers, 2007). Both can match information mass meeting in different ways. Deep-level diversity brings the expertise, attitudes, and values of the individual members to the deliberation room (Sommers, 2007). Surface-level diversity brings members demographics and social category membership into the deliberation room (Sommers, 2007).Sommers (2006) found diverse groups spent more time deliberating, made fewer literal errors, and if there was an error it was more likely to be corrected, more open-mindness, and less resistance to discussions of controversial race topics (Sommers, 2006). The homogenous jury was the opposite (Sommers, 2006). Those results showed the affect deep-level diversity could bring to a jury. However, another aspect, which will bring me back to the theory of aversive racism and race salience, is the affect having diversity has on a W hite juror.By having a racially diverse jury, the White jurors have the issue of race and egalitarian values in the point of their minds. The White jurors are avoiding seeming bias. Sommers et al. , (2008) conducted a study to see if there are Cognitive effects of racial diversity in a group. The study found that Whites in a diverse group process information more thoroughly. They had no interaction with a diverse group member, it was simply being aware of a diverse group composition, which force the cognition of White members.It even improved reading comprehension of race-relevant passages, particularly when Whites expected to have race-relevant conversation. This is important in a legal mise en scene as well. If a White jurors cognitive ability, and information processing is improved they will use dictatorial processing which is A comprehensive, analytic orientation to information processing in which perceivers access and scrutinize a great deal of information for its relevan ce to their judgment task, instead of heuristics processing or shortcuts in their decision making (Tamborini et al. 2007).The ultimate Court attempted to make juries more racially diverse Batson bulwark against race-based peremptories was based on two assumptions (1) a prospective jurors race can bias a jury selection judgments (2) requiring attorneys to release suspicious peremptories enables judges to determine whether a challenge is, indeed, race-neutral (Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79 (1986).To resume the findings, White jurors tend to show their bias towards African-American defendants when the trial is not racially charged because they are not motivated to conceal their bias (aversive racism and egalitarian views). In homogenous juries Whites are more like to be bias, spend less time on their decisions, make more errors, consider fewer perspectives, are not motivated to conceal their bias. Also, when there is information overload jurors use heuristics (shortcuts) to proc ess information, rather than a systematic review of the information.Tis effect, of using shortcuts, produces bias judgment for both African-American jurors and White jurors. All the aforementioned could be cause for the bias decision making of jurors and juries. However, there are positives that can be found throughout these studies. For instance, racially diverse juries, and race salience trials can help alleviate the biases by jurors and juries. It also proves that not all White juries are affected by the race of a defendant (in certain situations).Race and its effect on jury decisions is a topic that will be studied for years to come because of the complex nature of a jury and modern racism. Although studies have shown bias decision-making by White jurors there is still not becoming statistics to make a causal connection. Research has also shown ways in which a jurys bias can be minimized. The jury is one of the backbones of the court system, because of this, it is imperative t hat we continue to study juror bias and how to minimize their bias through different trial techniques and policies and procedures.