Race and jury decision-making in criminal justice

Discrimination and Disparity Issues in the Court System

Samuel Sommers\' (2007) article \"Race and the Decision-Making of Juries\" shows that the relationship between race and the making of juries is a complex one that involves the race/ethnicity of the defendant, how juries typically give verdicts on particular races, how a jury\'s racial composition impacts its verdict, and so on. Sommers analyzes the psychological phenomenon that goes on in the selection of juries, the inclusion of race as a variable, and the outcomes that can be predicted based on the racial make-up of the jury and of the defendant. The study focuses on existing literature but also raises new questions about how a jury\'s racial composition may play a part in the decision-making process. What Sommers concludes is that race does play a substantial role in the cause and effect relationship between jury make-up and verdict. However, he acknowledges that the relationship needs to be studied in more depth in order to better understand how the mechanism precisely works. In short, he observes that race does have an impact on a jury\'s verdict -- whether it is the race of the defendant or of the jury or of some other person involved in the trial (Sommers, 2007, p. 183).

What this article shows is that in the criminal justice system, lawyers (prosecutors and defense attorneys) knowingly operate in the jury-selection process by making use of concepts of discrimination and disparity in how they view themselves, the defendant, and the individuals that make up the jury. Race, in other words, is a key -- a pivotal driver that prosecutors and defenders use to push or pull the jury more in their favor. This suggests that, while every little bit helps, there is an obvious intention on the part of attorneys to use racial discrimination as a tool in their policy of protecting or helping a client. Instead of turning a blind eye to race or to racial disparity and relying solely upon the law, the truth of the case (as dictated by the evidence shown and the arguments made), and the good sense of the members of the jury (regardless of race or ethnicity), attorneys actually view race as a major factor in how the jury will act, how it will think, and how it will approach the facts as they are presented.

For a society that prides itself on being egalitarian, this may come as a troubling fact. That juries are manipulated and selected according to something that much of society would sooner turn a blind eye to than admit is of any importance or meaning indicates that there is a wide divide between the ideology that our communities espouse and the practical strategies that people within the criminal justice system actually employ on a daily base. Rather than disregarding race and discrimination as a non-factor according to egalitarian principles, attorneys play it up and focus in on it, believing it to be a major factor in determining one\'s guilt or innocence. Moreover, the study by Sommers (2007) shows that race is indeed such a factor -- that the racial make-up of juries or of the defendant or other persons involved in the trial is of so much significance that it can affect the outcome of the trial.