Causative Agents of Juror Biases, Research Paper Example

Cover Summary

The purpose of this study is to determine any outside influences to jurors decisions. As multiple aspects about the veracity and legitimacy  of eyewitness memory and testimony in any  trial are being debated, the subject of the impartiality of jurors must be noted. The subject of my research will be finding separate causative agents of jury bias. It is clear that witness testimony is biased and new methods of correcting this problem are being contemplated. It is now time for similar methods to be taken with regard to juror bias. Only then, will people be guaranteed their Constitutional right of a ‘fair trial’.

A similar study regarding remanding prisoners over in England was conducted, showing the unfairness of incrimination of numerous men while they awaited trial. Since the article drawing peoples’ attentions to the subject, the rate of remanded prisoners has dropped drastically (prisonreformtrust.org, 2010). In bringing the influences on jurors to light, this study hopes to achieve the same careful attention paid so that less men and women are falsely convicted.

Importance of Research

This research is crucial to the justice system for a number of reasons. The first reason is the aforementioned Constitutional right to a fair trial. Each day, scientists are finding faulty memories exist in the minds of witnesses and victims. As a result, the legitimacy of their accounts is almost entirely undermined by this new scientific information.

According to one study, a set of 328 criminals over the last few years have involved criminals being falsely indicted and later released (TruthInJustice.org, 2004). Since then this number has nearly doubled. The problem of injustice in jury decisions must be addressed and everything possible must be done to ensure the all influences be eliminated.

Statement of Problem

Currently there are thousands of prisoners estimated to be wrongly imprisoned (TruthInJustice, 2004). Juror biases may play a part in the wrongfully convicted.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework conjured for the course of the study attempting to identify sources of juror bias is the Evidence-based Practice Model. This model includes the a problem-derived basis which is used to determine where juror biases exist. All information obtained will be derived from the best evidence that exists at the time of the investigative study. Information will be garnered regarding information about the current standards of juror selection and a look at possible patterns of influence seen among those wrongly convicted and later exonerated. A theory will then be proposed combining all data and any available patterns in the analysis. First hand knowledge will accompany secondhand knowledge in this research. The secondhand knowledge will consist of research into past trials in which a defendant was convicted and later exonerated for possible patterns of influence on jurors. During this, the information will be analyzed and any theoretical patterns of influence will be tested on subject in a subsequent study. The firsthand experience will be derived from the answers given by jurors in the online survey.

Background of the Study

In 2004, a study was conducted garnering research on number of falsely convicted prisoners that were overwhelming the correctional facilities in the U.K..

Methods and Procedures

Methodology

In  the course of this study, a set of selection criteria must be followed precisely to ensure all factors are studied ceteris paribus. Holding all other influences beyond the dependent variable is crucial to the integrity of the study and correlative patterns used to drive the hypotheses seen in juror influences.

Selection Criteria

The focus of the research addresses the sudden influx of falsely accused prisoners who later are exonerated through other means. The research will assess various influences on the juror’s decision making by obtaining a verdict from online participants while showing a mix of falsely accused and rightfully accused convicts.

Inclusion criteria

This paper seeks to analyze and review the results obtained from the online surveys generated with the goal of discovering preternatural biases and outside influences that can delegitimize the impartiality of jurors.

Exclusion criteria

No consideration to race, gender, or ethnicity will be considered. This study will obtain results from the United States solely without regard for biases which may exist in other countries.

Sampling Method

Biases and outside influences must be avoided as they pertain to the researcher – as well as the participants in any study. Therefore, it is important that the results of this study be subject to the rule of parsimony. This study will take many precautions to ensure the integrity of the results. All outside influences will be blocked out to the best of the researcher’s capability.

Anonymity

Anonymity is also of crucial importance to the participant truthfulness and feeling of confidentiality. Along with the principle of informed consent, the study participant will be entirely informed of what the study entails, its projected goal in eliminating juror biases, and a statement ensuring their anonymity.

Equality Agreement

Finally, the study participants will be issued papers that explicitly cover the equality agreement in the research and use of any data obtained voluntarily from them. Any information pertaining to gender, race, or ethnicity will be excluded in all derived research since these factors are not being considered as sources of biases in this particular study.

Limitations

This study will be conducted only using prisoner data from the U.S..

Bibliography

Liptak, Adam. “Study Suspects Thousands of False Convictions”. (2004). Retrieved on October 13, 2010 from TruthInJustice.org: http://truthinjustice.org/exoneration-study.htm

Gillam, LeRoy. “America’s Wrongly Accused”. (2009). Retrieved on October 13, 2010 from AmericasWrongfullyConvicted.com: http://www.americaswrongfullyconvicted.com/

“Innocence Project: Know the Cases”. (2010). Retrieved on October 13, 2010 from InnocenceProject.org: http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/Browse-Profiles.php

“Justice Denied”. (2010). Retrieved on October 13, 2010 from JusticeDenied.org: http://www.justicedenied.org/about.htm