From the Torygraph.The ugly truth about juries
By Nic Fleming, Science Correspondent
Last Updated: 3:40am GMT 22/03/2007
Jurors are more likely to convict defendants they regard as ugly, say researchers.
Psychologists from Bath Spa University gave 96 student volunteers a fictitious account of an old lady being mugged and robbed.
Each volunteer was given a picture of one of four "defendants". Two were rated as very attractive by a separate group of students and two were considered ugly - or "homely" in the words of the researchers.
The less attractive individuals were almost 50 per cent more likely to be considered guilty, the British Psychological Society conference at York was told yesterday.
Asked about the extent of their guilt, the average rating for the physically attractive defendants was 2.3 on a scale of 0-5, compared to 4.4 for the ugly ones.
When participants were asked to sentence the guilty up to a maximum of 10 months in prison, the attractive muggers were given an average of four months, the ugly ones got seven.
One ugly and one beautiful defendant was black and they were slightly more likely to be found guilty and given longer sentences.
Dr Sandie Taylor, who presented the results, said: "Our findings confirm previous research so perhaps justice isn't blind after all."
And from The Times.
From Times Online
March 20, 2007
Bill to scrap jury trials reaches Lords
Frances Gibb, Legal Editor
An alliance of peers, the legal profession and civil libertarians will stage a last-ditch attempt today to force the Government to drop plans to scrap juries for complex fraud cases.
The Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill comes before the House of Lords today after scraping through the Commons by just 35 votes.
The Law Society, Bar Council and the law reform group Justice are urging peers to vote on an amendment tabled by Lord Kingsland, the Shadow Lord Chancellor, if carried, that would prevent the Bill from becoming law this session.
The Bill is the third attempt to remove juries in serious fraud trials, despite opposition from the legal profession. Last week Lord Goldsmith, QC, the Attorney-General, insisted that the move was not part of an attack on juries.
But the Law Society and others said that trial by jury was a fundamental right and an essential safeguard for the rule of law. It said: “Juries provide a barrier against oppressive and politically motivated prosecutions.”
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
6 comments:
I used to know someone -- this was about 20 years ago -- who'd been involved in conducting a large experiment about the role of physical attractiveness in criminal cases on behalf the US Federal Courts. His study, which involved getting jurors in to hear mock trials without their knowing the trials weren't the real thing, didn't come up with any evidence that attractiveness or lack of it affects the jury one way or the other.
He reckoned, and I think, from a quick look at abstracts on Google, it's born out by other studies that just showing people pictures of fictional defendants, which considerably cheaper and easier to do, isn't a valid way of conducting this sort of experiment.
His worry, and I think it's a valid one, is that if you just give people pictures and an abstract of the case, they aren't going to take it seriously as they would a real case and, more importantly, they're not doing what real juries are there for -- hearing and seeing the evidence and the witnesses tested. It's all very well to ask if you think the attractive girl in the picture is innocent or guilty, but in real life the jury would get to see how well her and the prosecution's versions of events stood up to scrutiny and cross-examination.
They'd also, of course, be discussing the girl's guilt or innocence with 11 other people and trying to reach a consensus, rather than giving their reaction privately and individually.
I wonder if this would tie in with Lombardos' prison experiment?
If that was actualy the case Cherie Blair would get put away for life for stealing a box of matches.
That's me stuffed. It's quackers!
This article sort of backs up this theory, but it is set in America and concerns a judge rather than jurors. but it is a relative issue.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2037112,00.html
The last part of that URL is as follows,it got a bit truncated
story/0,,2037112,00.html
Post a Comment