Jury Bias and Decision Making

Everyone possesses biases that influence their actions and perceptions.
Numerous studies have explored individual human biases within juries.
The legal system incorrectly assumes jurors are impartial; complete impartiality is impossible.

These biases investigate whether juries can be fair to racial/ethnic minorities and different genders.
Attractiveness bias: Juries tend to be more punitive toward unattractive individuals and more forgiving toward attractive ones.
Good-looking people generally receive more favorable treatment across various traits (supported by social psychology research).
Addressing these biases is challenging, but deliberation can mitigate their impact by encouraging evidence-based decisions.
These biases are considered "estimator variables" because they reveal potential jury failures, but are difficult to change.

Confirmation bias: already discussed in previous lectures.
Outcome bias and hindsight bias: influence how people judge the probability of events.
People tend to judge those who experience adverse outcomes as bad decision-makers, which is not always accurate.
In civil cases, severe injuries do not automatically imply recklessness.
Hindsight bias: the tendency to perceive events as more predictable after they occur (hindsight is 20/20).

Research has demonstrated that individuals informed about a negative outcome perceive the likelihood of that outcome as higher than those without such knowledge.
This bias can significantly impact negligence decisions in civil cases, especially those reliant on event probability assessments.

Individual factors like right-wing authoritarianism and belief in a just world (BJW) affect jury decisions.
Some individuals are inherently more punitive, favoring severe punishments, while others prioritize rehabilitation.
These individual differences influence jury dynamics.
BJW (Belief in a Just World): Reflects the degree to which individuals perceive the world as fair.
Individuals with a strong BJW may believe that victims deserve their fate or will be compensated later.
High BJW scores correlate with lower monetary awards in civil cases.

These biases relate to memory recall based on the timing of information during a trial.
Primacy effect: Information presented first is better remembered.
Recency effect: Most recent information is better remembered.
The prosecution benefits from these effects because they present their case first and last.

Death penalty issues are worthy of attention because we can actively address them by keeping the death penalty illegal.