Week 9: Sarat, Ellsworth, Rose et al - Juries

"The Role of the Jury in the Killing State" - Sarat and Austin

This article was relatively self-explanatory. The authors were examining the legitimacy and competency of the jury in death penalty cases. They wanted to know what factors lead to citizens agreeing to state-sponsored executions and on how they can distinguish between who should die and who shouldn't. They examined the case of John Henry Connors, in which the man in question was sentenced to death, and how the jurors reached that decision. What they found was that jurors were able to ease their consciences on making the decision to kill someone due to several factors. The fact that it was a group decision diffused responsibility across everyone in the jury; the jurors believed that since it was someone else rendering the final decision or pulling the switch, they were not really to blame; and they perceived the death penalty was the only way to assure that Connors never got out of prison and killed again.

This is a fascinating study, albeit one that is slightly obvious. I knew already about the diffusion of responsibility--you see that all the time when a group has to make a difficult decision. What's more interesting is the fact that all of the jurors, even those who were adamantly for the death penalty, would have voted differently if life in prison had been on the table. Apparently at the time, Georgia (the state in which the case happened) life without the possibility of parole was not a legal option. Many of the jurors expressed the fear that Connors would get parole after a few years and would then be able to kill again. They saw the death penalty as the only surefire way to make sure Connors stayed in prison forever. They admitted that if life without parole had been an option, they would have chosen it.

I think this is important to acknowledge, because it shows that the other two factors that go into death penalty decision making aren't quite as important. The diffusion of responsibility and the belief that Connors' actual death lay in someone else's hands wouldn't have even mattered. Jurors thus aren't just shirking responsibility or trying to sleep better at night--part of each juror really does understand that they are responsible for putting a person to death, and that is why the majority of them would have voted for life without parole if it had been possible--they didn't want to become killers themselves.

It would be worth it to examine how jurors make a death penalty decision when they have to choose between life without parole and death, and to see how the results are different.


"Are Twelve Heads Better Than One?" - Ellsworth

This was a comprehensive study on the competency of juries in general, and whether they were more or less competent as a group than a single judge. Ellsworth found that only juries in which there was a lot of participation and discussion were the juries truly effective in getting rid of confusion and errors in thinking, and that they were even more successful when they postponed the vote until after the discussion.

Juries have gotten a lot of flack these days due to what are perceived to be stupid decisions, but I think this article highlights some of the advantages of juries. The group dynamic allows not only for lots of different people bringing their personal experiences and knowledge to the table, but it also allows for discussion. Through discussion, people are able to get to the heart of the matter and are able to figure out the truth despite errors or fallacies.

However, the system has flaws. Ellsworth points out that the system inherently tries to confuse and mislead juries, particularly in the ways that attorneys and judges talk to them. There should be a better system in place to educate the jury and to provide them with more clear facts, and likewise there should be less of an incentive for attorneys to kick intelligent or experienced jurors off.


"Goffman on the Jury" - Rose, Diamond and Baker

This article took the theories of Erving Goffman and applied them to how jurors respond to off-stage actions at trials--that is, the things that take place in the background when other people are talking. The authors concluded that jurors placed high value on how the actors acted when they weren't in the limelight or thought no one was looking. A smirk or a certain body language could immediately destroy the credibility of a witness or attorney, and the certain way in which a defendant cried on the stand could make or break a vote in favor.

This was fascinating. I had never really taken these subtle background actions into account. I have to admit, I'd kind of always had the assumption that jurors were generally easily sold on really obvious tactics to garner sympathy, such as crying on the stand. What's interesting is that a juror will witness such crying, but will then watch how the crier acts once they're no longer on the stand. This sort of topic really deserves some more research, since it seems that how jurors perceive offstage actions is one of the most important factors in their decision-making.