Social psychology in court

Social Psychology in Court

The Social Psychology Essential in Jury Selection

The psychology of groups shows up in unique courtroom situations. This group mentality is in the realm of social psychology. Social psychology "concerns the study of the individual in a social context," (Hughes 2007). In recent years, many researchers have seen correlations between the findings of social psychology and the dynamics which influence decisions made by juries in court cases. Audrey Cleary, in her work "Scientific Jury Selection: History, Practice, and Controversy," states that the concept of jury selection is "the application of behavioral and social scientific principles to the selection of jurors most sympathetic to a particular side of a court case," (Cleary p.1). Both prosecutors and defense lawyers utilize individual and group psychology in order to choose a jury that best serves their purpose, which is to win the case.

There are some typical concerns about the reliability of a jury to be unbiased by a variety of reasons. For example, jurors seem to rely on eye-witness testimony with an incredible leniency on the credibility of the witness' story. Studies have proven the astounding numbers of conviction votes based on eye witness testimony, despite that testimony having questionable credibility, (Hughes 2007). Prosecutors tend to attempt to discredit eye witness testimony through calling into question the true capacity of human memory. The memory is known to have its shortcomings; many studies have shown the inaccuracy and distractibility of our memories, (Hughes). Eye witness testimony may be subject to not only forgetfulness, but also an inaccurate retention of the actual event. Jurors, who are typically not psychologists, tend to have a more mediocre idea of how the memory works. Without complete knowledge of the faults inside the human brain which alter or taint events which are recorded in the memory many people would over-rate the credibility of a testimony based on memory. For these reasons, and other examples of juror bias whether they be conscious or subliminal, many attorneys have begun investing the field of social psychology to weed out possible candidates which could taint the overall opinion of the group.

Jury selection now resides within the realm of social psychology. There is an incredible amount of psychology factors in the determination of jury members. In cases where the death penalty is a possible consequence of being found guilty, jurors are pre-screened based on their views of capital punishment. Possible candidates who feel opposed to the death penalty are removed from the pools of possible jurors, (Hughes 2007). Therefore, the group is saved from being influenced in any ways by jurors who condemn the use of punishment by death for any crime. The possible candidates that remain reinforce the feeling that the death penalty is acceptable if the defendant is in fact found guilty. However, according to Brian Hughes in his "Social Psychology in Court: An Overview," many researchers have found that there is a higher rate of convictions in death sentence cases with a juror of supporters of the death penalty. Social psychologists have shown that a group can be heavily influenced by the dominating, authoritarian decision making of one or more strong supporters of the death penalty.

Despite the democratic process of picking jury members, many typical jury selection practices later lead the group of twelve picked to be of a certain caliber, based on the characteristics of those chosen and how those characteristics relate within a group setting. Since the 1970's, social psychologists have been used by counsel to help ensure victory in the outcome of certain cases. Due to the influential potential of a jury's opinion, venue becomes essential in the outcome of the case. The trial of the police officers in the Rodney King beating was set in Simi Valley; the general population being extremely conservative and too many, racist. Modern professionals trained in jury selection based on social psychology findings are known in today's industry as trail consultants. This has inspired much academic research into group psychology of juries and jury selection. The removal of oppositional jurors does also remove the other side of opinion, therefore removing strong oppositional influences and opening up the possibility of a single opinion dominating the group's decision. The O.J. Simpson murder case highlighted the new theories of social psychology of jury selections. Jo-Ellan Dimitrius is a prime example of a trial consultant. She is responsible for helping select the jury that acquitted O.J. Simpson. The jury choice is thought by many to be one of the major reasons he was acquitted for the murder of his ex-wife. However, many researchers believe that attitudes and general opinions on certain subjects can lead to predicted jury decisions better than juror personality traits, "For example, the presence of an authoritarian personality defined as a strong preference for order, for clearly articulated rules, and for powerful leadership, s modestly related to individuals' likelihood to vote for conviction in criminal cases," (Cleary 11).