Since my responses to my other two articles were connected I'm going to connect this one too. The idea behind judges being black and white and critiqueing their sentencing is connected to the same themes I already have seen.
The first has to do with the humanity factor that black judges were obviously going to have. They have been discriminated themselves, as they were minorities for their job and class. This ultimately opens up the can of worms having to do with subconscious decision making in gender issues and whether or not someone should be put on death row. The sensitivity of these issues make all of them connected in another way.
The big idea from this connection is that people are indivudals. No matter what their job title, duties or strict regulations are in place for a part of law, the inner self will always prevail. Decisions in court will always have law and society side by side like ine very instance I discussed.
The numbers portrayed in these articles are very misleading. In this specific article the finidngs stated that their were only slight differences from black to white sentencing. It also said that black judges are still less likely to sentence to jail, but discrepancies for gender and race still were evident in the numbers. This small subsection of analysis during this study is meaningless. Detroit or wherever it was taken place is once again not a big enough determining group. The stats and numbers again were not enough for me in any article.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Structure and Practice of Familial Based...
I think that this article has a lot to do with the first one I read about juries deciding who should be killed or not. I spoke about how jurors have such a hard decision deciding which capital punishment inmates deserve to die for their crimes. I spoke about how prejudice and racism could have an affect on who votes for death for who. It's the same way with this issue.
Many people argue whether jurors seeing a woman in the defendant's seat will help or hurt her chances. I look it at it the same way as before, as any juror has the capacity to be racist, prejudist or subsconciously make a poor decison. That's just how it goes. The same can happen when a woman happens to be sitting in the court room. Some jurors make take it easy. And others might get upset and be more harsh. My point is that noone can tell and there are no pattern.s The court is just too sensitve and the jurors even more.
I do agree with the notion that woman with children or woman with disabilities or disease will be favored more. This has to do with the part of compassion and emotion that is relevant in any court room no matter what. Judges take this sensitivity on that I was speaking about now and make their biased decisions from that. That is no different than a juror deciding an outcome as well.
In this article I was upset with all the numbers and responses to interviews. That wasn't the information I was looking for again. The study done here looked at these gender issues and stayed completely inside the box. I was a little bored with that and needed to make my own conclusions and think about my own ideas.
Many people argue whether jurors seeing a woman in the defendant's seat will help or hurt her chances. I look it at it the same way as before, as any juror has the capacity to be racist, prejudist or subsconciously make a poor decison. That's just how it goes. The same can happen when a woman happens to be sitting in the court room. Some jurors make take it easy. And others might get upset and be more harsh. My point is that noone can tell and there are no pattern.s The court is just too sensitve and the jurors even more.
I do agree with the notion that woman with children or woman with disabilities or disease will be favored more. This has to do with the part of compassion and emotion that is relevant in any court room no matter what. Judges take this sensitivity on that I was speaking about now and make their biased decisions from that. That is no different than a juror deciding an outcome as well.
In this article I was upset with all the numbers and responses to interviews. That wasn't the information I was looking for again. The study done here looked at these gender issues and stayed completely inside the box. I was a little bored with that and needed to make my own conclusions and think about my own ideas.
The Role of the Jury in the Killing State
This article was extremeky interesting for me, talking about the difficult decisions that juries have to make in capital punishment crimes. I for one, support the death penalty so certain things stood out for me. I believe that the scum of our country who commit horrendous crimes do not deserve to live. Why should our tax money be used to support a criminal, who shouldn't even be living?
This article dives into specificalyy how jurors shouldn't be asked to do this job. Racism, prejudice, behavior and good looks can be determinant factors in how a juror subsconciously thinks. I always don't think that a group of 10 -15 people is a true representation fo an entire state. Most of the time jurors might not even know what they are deciding and the true pressure of their decision. In the COnnors example from this article the jurors aren't given pictures of where the criminal would be killed, just the victim. Photos are thrown in these peoples faces, but only from one side. That doesn't seem like a fair honest decision for me.
Other outside factors like I mentioned before can heavily affect the decision and outcome as well. How do we know jurors aren't really deciding to kill someone for the wrong reasons. It could be the color of their skin. It could be the way their eyes look. It could even be that someone looks like the ex of one of the members of the jury. So then that criminal is just unlucky that day?
I also found the part of the article where it questions how the jury members would change their decisions if it was more hands on. These members just have to vote or say a word, rather than doing the capital punishment themselves. I really do share this belief of wondering how the stats would change if deciding someone's death or life was more driectly from your decision. The role of the jury hides that dehumanization a little bit, while forcing jurors to make decisions in a confusing state with only some evidence from one side.
This article dives into specificalyy how jurors shouldn't be asked to do this job. Racism, prejudice, behavior and good looks can be determinant factors in how a juror subsconciously thinks. I always don't think that a group of 10 -15 people is a true representation fo an entire state. Most of the time jurors might not even know what they are deciding and the true pressure of their decision. In the COnnors example from this article the jurors aren't given pictures of where the criminal would be killed, just the victim. Photos are thrown in these peoples faces, but only from one side. That doesn't seem like a fair honest decision for me.
Other outside factors like I mentioned before can heavily affect the decision and outcome as well. How do we know jurors aren't really deciding to kill someone for the wrong reasons. It could be the color of their skin. It could be the way their eyes look. It could even be that someone looks like the ex of one of the members of the jury. So then that criminal is just unlucky that day?
I also found the part of the article where it questions how the jury members would change their decisions if it was more hands on. These members just have to vote or say a word, rather than doing the capital punishment themselves. I really do share this belief of wondering how the stats would change if deciding someone's death or life was more driectly from your decision. The role of the jury hides that dehumanization a little bit, while forcing jurors to make decisions in a confusing state with only some evidence from one side.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
