Sample Jury Deliberation Process: Guilty or Not Guilty?

This is a Criminal Justice discussion question which required a viewing of an unidentified video clip.

In the video clip, an inside look at the jury deliberation process is presented. Is this process of deliberation in fact the best way to arrive at a verdict of “guilty” or “not guilty”? Your answer should consider both subjective and objective methods of determining guilt or innocence. For instance, we should consider whether in some cases, juries may not base a verdict on facts, but instead may allow outside influences to affect their judgment.

I think that the particular process presented in the video clip is not the best way to arrive at a verdict of “guilty” or “not guilty.”  This opinion is based on this particular short clip, as I haven’t seen the full film, yet.  Additionally, I am not aware what the case entailed, nor am I aware of who the defendant was as a person; in character as well as his/her physical makeup.

First of all, the process of deliberation was very antagonistic from the get go.  I did see the majority of the jurors (who were speaking) with strong and at times forceful arguments presented to the critics of their opinion.  One person (man in glasses, first to speak about his opinion) was unsure of why he labeled the defendant guilty, perhaps the assertive jurors pushed their ideas onto him.  And the other person was on an opposite side of the scale, trying to come up with rational reasons to have the hardliners reconsider their views of the defendant.

It seemed that the majority of the twelve jurors were for punishing the defendant with evidence that was disputable (the train, distance between the witness and the crime, etc.).  From my observation, most jurors were men, Caucasian, and middle aged.  This could mean that the defendant’s fate may lie in the hands prejudice jurors (if the defendant is of a different race), xenophobes (if the defendant is of a different nationality, town, or even neighborhood), and otherwise like minded individuals with restricted views.

At present, the jury selection process requires that women and minorities are appointed as jurors, which I think is a splendid idea.  On top of that, I like the idea of jurors not having prior knowledge, or very limited knowledge, of the defendant and his situation, as this hypothetically grants someone a just trial.  Outside sources, like the media, love to ignobly twist the facts of the case, or at times shaming the name of the defendant(s) prior to his/her judicial proceedings. Presumed guilty until proven innocent. Isn’t that the motto many of us follow?

The movie clip didn’t depict this aspect clearly, but, perhaps this could have been the second week of deliberations, or the jurors were anxiously waiting for their lunch. Truthfully, it should not matter how long it takes for the fair verdict to arrive, since everyone should have the right to a fair trail and the due process.  The majority of these male jurors wanted to come to a hasty conclusion, and that was an indicator that fairness was partial.  If you were placed in a situation where you are fighting for your freedom, would you want the jurors to fully review the case, evidence, facts, and etc. in order to give out a justified verdict?

You might also like:

• Obama’s Urban Policy on Crime and Law Enforcement
• Terrorism: Theodore Kaczynski a.k.a. The Unabomber
• Governor George Ryan: Death Row Inmates and Injustice
• The Juvenile Justice System and The Adult Justice System
• Public’s Fascination with Prisons and Practice of Incarceration
• Terrorism: The Media and The Fear Factor
• Terrorism: Irish Republican Army (IRA) and Russian Revolution