Select a chapter from the assigned reading for the week in which the Chapter Application Paper is due
and write a 3-5 page paper which summarizes, synthesizes, and then applies the information from the
Chapter to issues relevant to the topic.
Each paper must identify the premise and supporting points of the chapter, a synthesis of the
information from the chapter, and a critical application of the premise(s) and supporting points from the
chapter to an issue in psychology and the legal system. The paper should address:
Key points, patterns, and trends from the information in the chapter
How the chapter information applies to issues in psychology and the legal system
Analysis of the chapter information from a Christ-centered perspective?
The organization of your paper is very important. Please follow APA and make sure to use section
headings in your paper. Make sure to include a cover page, a references page, and develop a well-
formatted, grammatical correct paper.
Your paper must be a minimum of 3–5 pages, be well-organized, and be reflective of your thinking and
struggles in these very complex areas of psychology and the legal system.
This is the textbook that we use
Textbook Reading
Costanzo & Krauss (2018) Chapter 9: Jury Selection and Chapter 12: Juries and Judges as Decision-
Makers
Chapters 9-12 for this assignement
Juries and Judges as Decision
Markers
Chapter 12
In This Chapter
•The Process of Jury Decision-Making
•The Effects of Biasing Information
•The Group Dynamics of Jury Deliberations
•Jury Nullification
•Jury Reform
•Judges Compared to Juries
Process of Jury Decision Making
•Mathematical model
•Mental meter moves toward guilty or not guilty
verdict based on evidence
•Story model
•Stories constructed to make sense of
evidence at trial
•Useful in describing decision making in rape,
murder, and sexual harassment trials
Process of Jury Decision Making
•Impact of evidence
•Strength of evidence is best predictor of jury verdict
•Severity of the charge against the defendant,
negative pretrial publicity, and trial complexity are
modestly correlated with verdicts
•Liberation hypothesis
•In most cases, verdicts are determined by strength of
evidence because it is compelling
•When evidence is ambiguous or close, juror are
liberated from constraints of evidence
Effects of Biasing information
•Pretrial publicity affecting judgment
•Negative publicity affects judgment
•Change of venue can be a remedy
Effects of Biasing information
•Defendant characteristics affecting judgment
•Wealth, social status, gender, attractiveness do
not affect in straightforward way
•Propensity of criminal behavior, gang
membership do influence
•Race interacts with jurors in racially charged trial
•Moral character
•Injured defendant
•Individual versus corporation
Effects of Biasing information
•Inadmissible evidence affecting judgment
•Sustained objections
•Ironic processes
•Reactance theory
•Impeachable evidence
Effects of Biasing information
•Complex evidence effecting judgment
•Complex/technical evidence
•Credentials and presentation by expert
witness
•No overpowering impact on jurors
Group Dynamics and
Jury Deliberations
•Research
•University of Chicago Jury Project of 1950s: Data
never analyzed; Resulted in statutes banning
observation or recording jury deliberations
•As result, research on jury deliberation comes
from mock juries or
•Strong jurors and power of majority
•Key jurors or jury leader: Disproportionate
influence on deliberation process
•Foreperson: Jury leader; moderator
•Leniency bias: Acquittal more likely with tied or
close votes
Group Dynamics and
Jury Deliberations
•Jurors
•No established relationships; no relationship
after trial
•Passive spectators in court; cannot question
at trial
•Cannot discuss with friends/family
•Must absorb and store information
•Suspend judgment until all evidence
submitted
HOT TOPIC
•The effects of technology in the classroom
•Computer animations or video simulations of how litigated
events may have occurred
•Brain-scan images and videos produced using MRIs and fMRIs
•Juror access to internet during trial
•Concerns
•Key arguments using PowerPoint rated more persuasive and
received better outcomes
•Unequal access to expensive technologies may create unfair
advantage
•Mobile devices may undermine trial process
Group Dynamics and
Jury Deliberations
•Three stages of deliberation
•Orientation: Verdict and evidence driven style
•Open conflict: Informational and normative
influence
•Reconciliation: Attempt to be satisfied with
verdict
Group Dynamics and
Jury Deliberations
•Group size is determinant of group
dynamics
•English Law: Dictated 12 person jury
•Williams v. Florida (1970) (U.S. Supreme
Court): Constitutionally permissible to
reduce jury size to 6 person
•Ballew v. Georgia (1978)(U.S. Supreme
Court): Constitutional minimun set at 6
Group Dynamics and
Jury Deliberations
•Research on jury size: Larger juries
•Deliberate more
•Recall evidence more accurately
•Generate more arguments
•Agree more on group performance
•Provide broader representation of
demographic groups
•Are more likely to match larger community
opinions
Group Dynamics and
Jury Deliberations
•Decision rules (Unanimous or majority rule)
•Unanimous verdict established in 14th century
•Non-unanimous verdict established in 1970s in
some situations
•Unanimous verdicts more thorough but more
hung juries
•Non-unanimous verdicts save time and reduce
hung juries
•Dynamite charge/Allen charge/shotgun instruction
to hung jury
Group Dynamics and
Jury Deliberations
•Jury nullification
•Can reject/nullify law
•Represent moral conscience of community
•Can be double-edged sword
Jury Reform
•Two reformer groups
•Moderate Reformers: Make good system
better
•Radical Reformers: Overhaul/abandon
system
•Methods
•Simplify instructions to jury
•Provide preinstructions to jury
•Allow jury discussion during trial
a
Did the
defendant
believe
the
conduct
.“°
Not
self-defense.
was
necessary
for
self-defense?
Either
murder
or
manslaughter.
Yes
Did the
defendant
believe
the
conduct
N°.
Not
self-defense.
was
reasonable
for
self-defense?
Either
murder
or
manslaughter.
Yes
Was
the
defendant's
conduct
reasonably
proportionate
to
the
threat
that
he
or
she
genuinely
believed
to
exist?
Yes
No
NOT
GUILTY
If
the
offense
charged
is
murder;
by
way
of
guilty
of
manslaughter.
self-defense.
Other
offenses;
Not
self-defense.
11
Y
UNA
ERS
TY.
Finding Self-Defense
Judges Compared to Juries
•Judges should be impartial/no biases
•Research
•Judges are influenced by bias as much as jurors.
•Judges have limited awareness of own decision
making process.
•Safeguards are in place to neutralize bias of
jurors but not for judges.
•Judges and juries have high agreement rate.
•Disagreement rate must be examined.
Jury—Judge
Agreement
Rates
Averaged
Across
Studies
Jury
acquitted
Jury
convicted
Judge
acquitted
13%
5%
Judge
convicted
19%
63%
LIBERTY
UNA
ERS
TY.
Jury-Judge Agreement Rates
Averaged Across Studies
Jury Selection
Chapter 9
In This Chapter
•Assembling a Jury: Pools, Venires, and
Voir Dire
•Using Stereotypes and Science to Select
Jurors
•Juror Characteristics and Attitudes as
Predictors of Verdict
•Pretrial Publicity as a Source of Bias
•An Overview of Trial Procedure
Assembling a Jury
•History
•Early juries were not neutral; modern juries
are intended to be impartial.
•Sixth Amendment: Impartial juries for criminal
cases
•Seventh Amendment: Impartial juries for most
civil cases
Assembling a Jury
•1968 Jury Selection and Service Act and
U.S. Supreme Court in Taylor v. Louisiana (1975)
•Jurors must be fair cross section of community
•Potential jurors are selected from voter
registration lists
•From jury pool to venire
•Random sample of potential jurors summoned to
appear (venire).
•One-day or one trial system widely adopted.
•Approximately 20% are no-shows.
•Variety of excuses eliminate some.
Assembling a Jury
•Voir dire
•Attorneys and judge ask potential jurors
questions; more limited scope in federal
courts
•System used to educate and ask commitment
from jurors
•Lawyers exercise challenges
•Challenges for causes
•Peremptory challenge
•May be used to stack juries
Steps in the Jury Process
JURY POOL
•All mentally
competent, English-
speaking, adult
U.S. not been
convicted of a
felony and who
are living in the
relevant
jurisdiction.
SAMPLE
•Group of eligible
people summoned
to report for jury
duty.
VENIRE
•People who
actually
show up at
the
courthouse
for jury
duty.
JURY
•Group that
survives
the voir dire
process.
Assembling a Jury
•Cognizable groups
•Certain group members are recognized as
sharing a distinguishing characteristics or
attitude.
•Peremptory challenges cannot be used to
eliminate members of some cognizable
groups (Batson v. Kentucky, 1986); but can be
used to strike jurors because of religiously
based beliefs (United States v. DeJesus,
2003)
Stereotypes, Science and Jury
Selection
•Determining which potential jurors least
likely to support a side of a case
•Physical characteristics or first impressions
•Information from written questionnaires
•Social media analysis
•Information from voir dire procedures
N=}
5SCAI
Variations
in
Voir
Dire
Procedures
Traditional,
Limited
Voir
Dire
Expansive
Voir
Dire
No
pretrial
juror
questionnaire
Pretrial
questionnaire
No
social
media
analysis
Social
media
analysis
Limited
number
of
questions
Larger
number
of
questions
Closed-ended
questions
that
permit
only
Combination
of
closed-ended
and
open-
“yes”
or
“no”
answers
ended
questions
Group
questioning
of
prospective
jurors
Individual,
sequestered
voir
dire
Judge
alone
conducts
voir
dire
Judge
and
lawyers
both
participate
(Adapted
from:
Hans,
V.P.
&
Jehle,
A.
(2003).
The
jury
in
practice:
Avoid
bald
men
and
people
with
green
socks?
Other
ways
to
improve
the
voir
dire
process
in
jury
selection.
Chicago-Kent
Law
Review,
78,
1179-1201.)
LIBERTY
UNIV
ERS
ET
Y.
Variations in Voir Dire Procedures
Stereotypes, Science and Jury
Selection
•Can effective lawyers remove potential
jurors who do not support their side of the
case?
•Scientific jury selection
• 1972 “Harrisburg Seven” trial; mistrial
•1995 O.J. Simpson murder trial; not guilty
verdict
•May be most effective in subset of cases
Stereotypes, Science and Jury
Selection
•Jury consultants assist in jury selection
based on research conducted by social
scientists
•Data driven approach
•Use of mock jurors; shadow jury
•Analyze supplemental juror questionnaires
HOT TOPIC
•Jury consulting and the role of money at
trial
•Is it ethical?
•Does it promote or prevent justice?
•Is it screwed in favor of the wealthy?
What do you think?
Juror Characteristics and Attitude
•Juror characteristics and verdict prediction
•Association is modest or unreliable
•Modestly associated characteristics
•Locus of control
•Belief in a just world
•Authoritarianism
Juror Characteristics and Attitude
•Case-specific attitudes
•Moderately predictive
•General research tools
•Revised Legal Attitudes Questionnaire
(RLAQ)
•Juror Bias Scale (JBS)
•Pretrial Juror Attitude Questionnaire (PJAQ)
•Civil trial specific scale
•Civil Trial Bias Scale
Juror Characteristics and Attitude
•Similarity-leniency hypothesis research
•Montoya and Horton (2013)
•Kerr and colleagues (1995)
•Sommers (2006)
•Huntley and Costanzo (2003)
Juror Characteristics and Attitude
•Similarity-leniency hypothesis
•Similarity produces leniency only when
evidence is inconclusive and similar jurors
outnumber dissimilar jurors.
•Similarity may causes jurors to be more harsh
in defendant judgment.
•Investigations have only addressed race and
gender similarity.
Pretrial Publicity as a
Source of Bias
•Sometimes potential source of prejudice
•Often contains inadmissible as evidence
during trial
•May be misremembered or confused by
jurors as presented in trial
• May create immunity to judge’s instruction
to disregard
•Most effectively remedied by change of
venue
UNIV
ERS
ET
Y.
Common Courtroom Layout
Overview of Trial Procedure
•After jury selection
•Trial begins
•Opening statements by opposing attorneys
•Witnesses called and questioned (direct
examination and cross examination)
•Closing arguments made by each attorney
Juries and Judges as Decision-Makers
SUMMARY
The jury process is the cornerstone of legal decision making in the United States and is one of the most
studied areas in psychology and law. Researchers have developed several theories about how jurors make
decisions. One theory, the mathematical model, suggests jurors use a type of mental meter and adjust their
tendency to decide guilty or not guilty as they receive evidence. The story theory suggests jurors try to
develop a story that helps them make sense of all the evidence. To form a story, jurors make inferences on
the basis of their own experiences. How the information from different jurors’ stories becomes combined
is yet to be understood. Fortunately, most research supports the notion that, ultimately, jurors make their
decisions on the basis of the evidence provided, except when it is weak. When the evidence is
unconvincing, according to the liberation hypothesis, jurors feel liberated from using it. Still, these
theories only touch on possible explanations for how jurors make up their minds during the decision-
making process. There is a plethora of research showing juror decisions are influenced by many other
contributing factors, including such things as defendant, victim, and juror demographics; personality traits
of jurors; judge’s instructions; and so forth.
Among one of the more researched areas regarding extra-legal contributing factors to juror
decisions is pretrial publicity, which tends to be pro-prosecution. It has been argued that jurors can
confuse what they have learned via pretrial publicity with actual evidence presented at trial, thus making
it very difficult for jurors to disregard––even when the judge admonishes the jury to ignore it. Emotional
pretrial publicity (e.g., the college co-ed murdered on the evening of her wedding) appears to have a
bigger impact on decisions than does factual information (e.g., the murder weapon’s retrieval). One
reason may be that the effect of emotional information persists longer than does the effect of factual
information. A change of venue or postponing the trial may be required to mitigate the influence of
emotional information.
Another factor that affects jurors’ decisions is the defendant’s characteristics. If a big difference
exists between the moral standing of the criminal and that of the victim, jurors are likely to be less lenient.
There is also a slight tendency for jurors to treat attractive defendants more leniently than unattractive
defendants. Additionally, jurors hold corporations to a higher standard than individual defendants because
corporations are expected to have an interior system of checks and balances.
Ironically, a judge’s admonishment to disregard evidence may also make that evidence more
salient to jurors. According to the theory of psychological reactance (Shaw & Skolnick, 1995), jurors are
more likely to go against the judge’s instructions if they feel their freedom of choice is taken away.
Perhaps this effect occurs because the evidence is now somehow viewed by jurors as more important, by
virtue of their attention being drawn to it; or, according to reactance theory, jurors may simply dislike
being told what to do. Instructing jurors to ignore hearsay evidence appears more effective than telling
them to ignore prior conviction evidence. Evidence that has been presented and then termed inadmissible
can also affect juror decisions. Impeachment evidence—information about a defendant’s past behavior
presented to discredit a defendant’s testimony—may also have a negative impact on juror decisions. And,
12
when the evidence in a case is complex, jurors’ decisions may be affected by the credentials of an expert
witness.
To examine how jurors deliberate as a group, researchers study groups making the types of
decisions that must be made in court. There is, however, a ban on most research examining real juries
during deliberation. However, a great deal of mock jury research has shown similar findings to that of
actual juries (Bornstein, 1999). In fact, mock jury research tends to show smaller effects than what are
found with actual juries. Before a jury is formed, attorneys for both sides have a chance to examine and
question potential jury members during voir dire. During voir dire, attorneys attempt to identify those
jurors who they believe will be strong and influential. Very well-educated jurors with high occupational
status tend to wield more power than other jurors. The foreman, who is most likely to be the first one to
speak and may ask if the jury should take an initial vote, also influences the jury decision by controlling
the procedures and interactions of the other jurors. The selection of a foreman and the initial vote occur
during the orientation stage of deliberation. When an initial vote is taken early, the remaining deliberation
may be verdict driven, which results in a shortened discussion of the evidence. When there is a delay
before the initial vote, the deliberations are more likely to be evidence driven. When an initial vote shows
a clear majority, there is a good chance that the verdict will reflect that initial majority. During the open
conflict stage, the majority of jurors will try to change the minds of the minority through informative
(data-driven) and normative (peer-pressure) influence. A small number of jurors use up most of the
deliberation time, and evidence-based conversation comprises about 75% of the deliberation. If the initial
majority is small or the vote split, a leniency bias may lead to a verdict of not guilty. During the final
phase for juries that have reached a decision, there are usually attempts to reconcile jurors who may have
become bitter and estranged from one another.
The 12-person jury system was adopted from that of English law, though the original principle on
which this number became the standard is unclear. Though the verdicts of 12-person juries do not differ
significantly from those of 6-person juries, they tend to deliberate longer, recall evidence better, and
represent the community more thoroughly. Their verdicts are likely to be more consistent with the
sentiment of the larger community. For capital trials, the verdict reached must be unanimous, although a
majority of states require a unanimous verdict for other criminal trials too. Only about half of the states
require unanimity for misdemeanor trials. The remaining states permit a majority decision to suffice.
Majority rule juries use more peer pressure, vote more times, and discuss evidence less than unanimity
juries. When the necessary majority has been reached, meaningful discussion among majority jurors
ceases. When a decision cannot be reached, the jury is considered hung. Hung juries occur most
frequently when the evidence is unconvincing, the arguments have been ineffective, and the letter of the
law is vague. If the judge refuses to accept the hung jury and declare a mistrial, he or she may give the
jurors a dynamite charge strongly encouraging them to reconsider whether they can come to a decision.
Juries are not bound to explain how they came to their decision and will sometimes refer to their
moral conscience rather than to the law in deciding a case. If they feel the law would result in an unjust
outcome, the result may be jury nullification (of the law). Jury nullification is more likely when juries
have been notified of their nullification powers. A different interpretation of disregard for the law is that
juries simply do not understand the relevant law. A great deal of recent research has examined juror
instructions and the amount of “legalese” included in these instructions. Some states have actually
changed their legal terminology so jurors can better understand the legal decision-making process. For
example, The Judicial Council of California has adopted award-winning plain language civil and criminal
jury instructions that accurately convey the law using language that is understandable to jurors.
Despite the negative effects of a few highly publicized poor jury decisions, juries generally
function quite well. They rely on the evidence, and almost all jurors indicate they feel they had an
opportunity to voice their opinion. Those who call for jury reform include groups that want to improve
the current jury system and those who believe the system is unfixable. Methods proposed for improving
the system include allowing juries to take notes, improving the timing and comprehensibility of jury
instructions, compensating jurors better, allowing jurors to indirectly ask witnesses questions, and
permitting them to discuss the trial before deliberation begins. Evidence shows that all these methods
have some degree of effectiveness, though there are concerns about how well the jurors would follow the
rules regarding some of these changes.
Possibly the greatest amount of research examining juror decision making in the U.S. Court
system has focused on juror bias. The Bureau of Justice Statistics has demonstrated that poor, minority
defendants are found guilty more often, given lengthier sentences, and found more culpable than are
White defendants and those of higher socioeconomic status (SES; Espinoza & Willis-Esqueda, 2008).
Though research on prejudice in general has shown a shift from blatant to more subtle feelings of
prejudice and displays of discrimination, bias in juror decisions toward low-SES minority defendants has
remained relatively stable. In addition, if minority defendants are accused of committing crimes against
majority group members, juries are even more punitive. These extra-legal demographic factors extend to
juror race and ethnicity, gender, age, political affiliation, and personality attributes. Most of this research
has established the biasing effects of these extra-legal factors in juror decisions.
If the jury system is unfixable, judges would be the most likely replacements. But judges are no
more impartial and unbiased than are jurors. That juries are composed of a group of individuals actually
makes it more unlikely that the bias or prejudice of an individual would impact the group decision. In
about 75% of cases, it seems that judges would have come to the same decision as the juries did. Juries
tend to disagree in cases in which the arguments of both sides are considered to be somewhat equal rather
than in cases clearly favoring one side. Also, when judges and juries disagree, jurors tend to be more
lenient. This leniency is restricted to lesser crimes (e.g., drug possession) rather than more serious crimes
(e.g., rape).
Jury Selection
SUMMARY
The jury is the cornerstone of the U.S. criminal justice system. The construction of the jury and its duties
are weighed so heavily that many of the amendments to the Constitution address juries. The Fifth
Amendment addresses grand juries; the Sixth Amendment ensures the accused to a speedy and public trial
by an impartial jury. The Seventh Amendment preserves the right to a trial by jury in civil cases. The
process of jury selection is really a process of excluding people who the attorneys do not want to serve. A
jury pool is formed, usually from voter registration records and sometimes from government service lists
or driver license records. These selection practices partly explain why certain groups, such as poor people
or people who move frequently are underrepresented. Next, a random sample is chosen from the jury
pool, and this group comprises the venire. Some people who are called for possible jury service do not
show up at court, may be legally exempt, or have special excuses, all of which cause the pool to further
shrink. Finally, the attorneys question potential jurors during voir dire, and on the basis of the answers
given more of them may be excluded.
Attorneys may dismiss a juror through a challenge, either for cause or peremptorily. Attorneys do
not need a reason for their peremptory challenges, so these are limited in number. However, attorneys
may not, per Bateson v. Kentucky (1986), dismiss jurors simply because they belong to some recognizable
group. Defense attorneys make more peremptory challenges because the trial outcome may result in a
lengthy prison sentence or a large damage payment in a civil suit. During voir dire, the jurors may also be
informed about aspects of the upcoming trial. For example, they may be told that there is the possibility of
the death penalty if the suspect is found guilty. Although it is unlikely that the final jury will be
representative of the larger community, it will presumably be a diverse group with varied backgrounds
and opinions.
Attorneys believe that they can select jurors who will be favorable to their side during voir dire,
but research shows otherwise. Zeisal and Diamond (1978) formed shadow juries from prospective jurors
that had been dismissed during voir dire. The actual and shadow juries differed very slightly in terms of
the length and intensity of their deliberations, and even when the attorneys were effective at removing
potential jurors who would not be sympathetic to their side during voir dire, actual juries and shadow
juries came to the same verdict for 9 of 12 cases. Attorneys, moreover, have been shown to be no better
than college students at choosing jurors and do no better than chance at detecting prospective jurors with
bias. Rather than using intuition, some attorneys use statistical models to make a scientific jury selection.
To make a scientific selection, attorneys interview large numbers of prospective jurors, asking many
demographic questions as well as questions about their attitudes toward the defendant. The attorneys use
the correlations they find to help choose jurors during voir dire. Mock voir dire interviews that were
conducted by the defense in the O. J. Simpson trial suggested that Black women would be the most
forgiving of potential jurors, and Black jurors would be more likely than White jurors to believe the
defense’s story that corrupt police officers had set up Simpson. The actual jury for the case comprised
eight Black women, a Black man, and three other individuals. The jury found Simpson “not guilty.”
9
Companies being sued and sometimes wealthy defendants hire trial consultants that extensively
question large groups of people to form a mock jury. The mock jurors then engage in a shortened version
of the trial and are observed as they deliberate and reach a verdict. Their process may produce juror
profiles that attorneys can use during the actual voir dire. It can also inform attorneys about weak or
unclear aspects of their trial presentation. A trial consultant may also form a shadow jury that follows the
actual trial but is not under the same restrictions as the actual jury. The consultant can interview the
shadow jury throughout the trial and attorneys may use a shadow jury’s feedback to alter trial strategy. At
best, however, these processes have been shown to have modest effects on trial outcome. Similarly,
attempts to find certain juror characteristics predictive of trial outcome have been relatively fruitless,
although it has been found that men talk more than do women during deliberation and are more likely to
be elected foreperson.
Locus of control, belief in a just world, and authoritarianism are three general personality
variables that do bear some relation to jury verdicts in cases in which the evidence for guilt is not clear.
Jurors with an external locus of control tend to blame others for someone’s misfortune. Jurors who believe
in a just world believe that people get what they deserve. Jurors with an authoritarian personality are more
likely to convict and impose harsher sentences. Attempts have also been made to correlate cynical
attitudes about the legal system with trial outcomes. And some consultants and attorneys have attempted
to evaluate the effect of juror–defendant similarity on trial outcome. Generally, when the evidence against
a defendant is weak, researchers find some support for the similarity–leniency hypothesis, but this result
depends on the racial composition of the jury.
After a jury has been chosen, the attorneys give their opening statements. Plaintiffs (in civil trials)
and prosecutors (in criminal trials) go first and call witnesses to testify in direct examination. The defense
attorneys then cross-examine, which may be followed by redirect and recross examinations. Once the
prosecuting and defense sides have had their turns at questioning, they make their closing arguments.
Running head: APPLICATION PAPER 1 1
Application Paper
By: (Name)
Course:
Professor:
Institutional Affiliation:
Date:
APPLICATION PAPER 2
APPLICATION PAPER
Abstract
The jury plays a vital role in the justice system; thus, its composition has triggered
various constitutional amendments to enhance its performance and outcomes. The sixth
amendment provides that the accused persons should be subjected to a public trial on time
through an impartial process. Impartiality of the jury is evident in their decisions; hence,
decision- making is an integral consideration. Decisions are used as a verdict to charge the
accused persons based on the substantiality of provided evidence. The focus of this essay is to
summarize, synthesize, apply the information to psychology and the legal system, and a Christ-
centered perspective of the content.
Summary and synthesis
The U.S constitution has undergone various changes to improve operations within the
criminal justice system. The law requires the accused persons to be promptly presented in courts,
which are required to be impartial (Constanzo & Krauss, 2018). The selection of a jury is carried
out by the attorney to eliminate people who are not needed in the case. Jury plays a vital role in
the case as they help in deliberation and impacts the verdict. Decisions made by the jury are
important because it is the legal decision-making entity in psychology law; hence, make binding
decisions. Most often, the jury can use a mental meter to arrive at decisions by stating if the
accused is guilty or not basing their decisions on provided evidence. On other occasions, they
can create stories, especially on rape cases, to validate the availed evidence. The decisions by the
jury depend on how the piece of provided evidence is convincing based on various variables.
APPLICATION PAPER 3
However, when the presented evidence is non-convincing, the jurors may disregard it because it
is not significant in their decisions.
Factors influencing jurors’ decisions
Pre-trial publicity
Decision- making is influenced by various factors such as pretrial publicity, which is
always regarded as favoring the prosecution teams. In most cases, the jury has confused
information within its disposal with the presented evidence during trial processes; thus, deterring
the jury from sidelining even if the judges advise so (Constanzo & Krauss, 2018). Emotional
publicity during pretrial significantly impacts on jury decisions compared to factual information.
This is because the emotional impact of an incident can be protracted and persist for a longer
duration than factual evidence.
The moral standing of the accused and the victim
The decision is dependent on the moral standing of the criminal and the victim, which are
weighed before concluding. The morality aspect is an integral factor considered by the jury
before making a binding decision (Constanzo & Krauss, 2018). The precedence that has been
common in most jury determination is that they are more lenient to appealing defendants while
less tolerant of unattractive defendants. Reactance theory shows that jurors can act contrary to
the judge’s regulation if they feel that their freedom has been infringed. The situation occurs
when the jurors regard the availed evidence as substantial, while the judges try to divert their
focus from its substantiality.
APPLICATION PAPER 4
Challenges in the decision-making process
Reliance on the moral consciousness and not the law
The justice system depends on the laws to make impartial deliberations on the accused
and victims. However, in certain instances, they embark on using moral consciousness and not
the laws by utilizing nullification powers (Constanzo & Krauss, 2018). The moral is applied in
some cases when the juror perceives that if the law is administered, the impact will be
unfriendly. Thus, some states such as California have opted for plain language to help the jurors
understand the decision-making process.
Bias
The judicial system is expected to be neutral in its deliberations by embracing equality
for all persons. However, it has been evident in the selection of the jury why specific categories
such as the poor are not adequately represented (Constanzo & Krauss, 2018). In most cases,
attorneys prefer jurors who act in their favor. Authoritarian jurors have a habit of imposing a
harsher sentence on the accused than just jurors.
Christian- perspective
The Biblical doctrines emphasize that all people are equal; thus, within every domain,
equality and impartiality should be demonstrated because God is an impartial and a just judge.
The Bible states that people should endeavor not to do injustice in courts and should not show
partiality to the poor and rich, but demands judgments to be made in righteousness (Leviticus
19:15). Thus, the Christian perspective requires those in authorities, especially those in the
APPLICATION PAPER 5
justice departments, to show no partiality since God does not demonstrate prejudice (Romans
2:11). People should endeavor to serve justice in every responsibility they undertake to serve all
as equals.
APPLICATION PAPER 6
References
Constanzo, M. & Krauss, D. (2018). Forensic and legal psychology; psychological science
Leviticus 19:15 (n.d). You shall show no injustice
Romans 2:11 (n.d). Show no partiality
