CCJ3024 NOTES from 4/12 - Juvenile Justice System/Juries
CCJ3024 NOTES from 4/12 - Juvenile Justice System/Juries CCJ3024
Popular in Advanced Principles of Criminology Justice
Popular in Criminology and Criminal Justice
verified elite notetaker
This 6 page Class Notes was uploaded by Haley Kairab on Tuesday April 12, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to CCJ3024 at University of Florida taught by Dr. Marvin Krohn in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 13 views. For similar materials see Advanced Principles of Criminology Justice in Criminology and Criminal Justice at University of Florida.
Reviews for CCJ3024 NOTES from 4/12 - Juvenile Justice System/Juries
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 04/12/16
CCJ3024 Lecture 23 Notes from 4/12 Juvenile Justice System History 1. English Poor Laws some protection of juveniles in the work place 2. 1536 children older than 5 but less than 14 who were not working may be put to service under government authority 3. 1601 children whose parents did not take care of them could become wards of the states 4. Parens Patriae state act in lieu of parents Separate treatment of juveniles • 1825 NY House of Refuge • 1848 first reform school in Massachusetts Lyman school • Lanchester School for girls 1854 Juvenile Court • Movement began with the case herd before the Illinois Supreme Court in 1870 People v O'Connell ◦ Parents protested confinement ◦ Supreme court ruled that confinement was a punishment and therefore parens patriae did not apply • First court established in 1899 in Cook County Illinois ◦ Other states soon followed • By 1945 all states had established separate juvenile courts • Court was to be a helping institution to act in the best interest of the child (state acting in lieu of parents) ◦ Determine if child involved in incident ◦ Determine reasons why involved ◦ Determine was to correct the situation ◦ Use for of law to ensure cooperation Court not functioning as intended • Kent vs US ◦ Juveniles had right to hearing in case of waivers to the adult court • Right to an attorney • Access to records • Written statement of reasons for the transfer • Justice Fortas juveniles "had the worst of both worlds" • In re Gualt 1967 ◦ In cases that could result in a loss of freedom, juveniles had the right to: • Notice of charges • Counsel • Question of witness • Protection of selfincrimination • In re Winship 1970 ◦ Established the criterion of beyond a reasonable doubt rather than preponderance of evidence in juvenile cases • McKeiver v Pennsylvania 1971 ◦ Jury trials not required in juvenile court Juror and Jury Decision Making Basic steps in a criminal jury trial… How many cases use juries? • Constitution provides the right to a trial by jury for all criminal and civil cases • Juries actually render verdicts in fewer that 10% of all cases • 3 million called for jury duty annually ◦ Less than 60% actually serve Functions of Juries • What is the jury responsible for doing? ◦ Decides issues of fact • Interpreting and deciding between competing and conflicting interpretations of events • Referee in an adversary contest ◦ Decides issues of law • Legitimizing behavior under the law ◦ Injects community sentiment • Acts as a check on our justice system What happens in voir dire? • Lawyers from opposing side proceed to exercise challenges against the inclusion of certain jurors until a petit jury composed of persons satisfactory to both sides is formed • Really a process of excluding jurors rather than selecting them ◦ Challenges for cause ◦ Preemptory challenges ◦ Other types of exclusions Jury selection process • Jury pool of 200 to 1,000 citizens drawn each month from source list ◦ Most jurisdictions use a number of sources for the names of potential jurors. ◦ The lists are sorted and duplicates are discarded. ◦ The jury pool is then selected on a random basis. ◦ The term that jury pools serve vary from jurisdiction. • A panel of potential jurors is randomly selected for each jury trial. The size of the panel may be increased depending on the possible difficulty of selecting a qualified jury. • The voir dire is a process of eliminating potential jurors. Both prosecution and defense may object to jurors and challenge them peremptorily or for cause ◦ Ex/ out of a panel of 30; 14 are selected for jury and 16 and challenged/not used • Jurors that are not selected are returned to the pool for possible use on another jury How effective is jury selection? • Study of jury selection in felony voir dire (Johnson & Haney, 1994) • Same attitudinal composition in the following: ◦ Juries of 12 chosen by attorneys ◦ Juries of 12 chosen at random ◦ Juries of the first 12 to be called for service How might social scientists assist in jury selection? • Trial consulting • Originated in the 70s, has since expanded ◦ Use of marketing surveys and consumer profiles ◦ Psychologists, sociologists, attorneys • Customary in serious civil suits • Common in high profile criminal cases • No licensure required for trial consultants Scientific Jury Selection • Rests on the assumption that a person's individual differences and attitudes will predict how he/she will decide a particular case ◦ Attitudes only matter in cases in which the evidence is somewhat ambiguous ◦ Limited by the type of case/evidence/etc • Community survey ◦ Most common mechanism ◦ Survey of the community population from which the jury panel will be drawn ◦ Examine relationships between attitudinal, culpability, and demographic measures ◦ Use to create jury questions for voir dire • Mock trials ◦ Help with theme development, trial strategy • Shadow juries Issues with Jury Selection • The law forbids exclusion of jurors based on membership in a cognizable group (Strauder vs West Virginia, 1880; Batson vs Kentucky, 1980) • The voir dire process in special cases condones excluding jurors based on attitudes toward the case: ◦ Capital cases ◦ Juvenile Waiver cases • This may also exclude a cognizable group • Characteristics of capital voir dire and juvenile waiver voir dire (Haney, 1984a; Levett, Crocker & Kovera, 2009) ◦ Questions that imply guilt ◦ Questions that ask jurors to imagine punishment ◦ Public commitment to attitudes ◦ Non qualified jurors were dismissed • "Could you find the defendant guilty knowing that he will face the death penalty?" • "Can you find this defendant guilty knowing that he was 12 at the time of the crime and will face adult time?" • Consequences of capital voir dire ◦ Changes demographic makeup of jury (Haney, 1984b) • More likely to exclude African Americans, Women ◦ Removal of divergent attitudes results in shorter deliberations (Cowan et al., 1984) ◦ Removal of nonqualified jurors caused the jury to become more conviction prone pretrial (Haney, 1984b) • Consequences of juvenile waiver voir dire ◦ Changes demographic makeup of the jury (Levitt, Crocker & Kovera, 2006; Greathouse, Sothmann, & Kovera, 2008) ◦ Removing divergent attitudes results in shorter, lower quality deliberations (Levett et al., 2006) Explanation based models of juror decision making • Account for the jurors' active role in the process • Incorporate the jurors' unique experiences • The most empirically supported model in the Story Model for Juror Decision Making (Pennington and Hastie) ◦ Three steps Step 1: Story Creation • Jurors integrate the evidence into a story or causal chain of events • Story ◦ Trial evidence presented in a disconnected format ◦ Personal knowledge of similar events accounts for jurors' unique experiences ◦ Expectations about what makes a story complete cause, effect, motivation • Coverage the extent to which the story accounts for al the evidence presented at trial • Coherence consistency, completeness, plausibility • Uniqueness if more that one story is high in coverage and coherence, confidence in either story will be low • Coverage, coherence, uniqueness = best story Step 2: Learning Verdict Options • Jurors learn the verdict options available to them through judicial instructions ◦ Prior knowledge of the law may interfere with the ability to learn the instructions ◦ Difficult task one trial, one time learning ◦ Jurors understand less than 50% of the instructions given to them at trial Step 3: Verdict Decision • Jurors match the accepted story with the various verdict definitions. The best match is decided. The Story Model for Juror Decisions • Ex/ Jurors who believed the defendant went home to get a knife were more likely than those who believed his story to decide a verdict of first degree murder ◦ Going home to get the knife showed premeditation • The crux of the issue ◦ Is it normal to carry a knife? How can we assist juries in making better decisions? • Provide jury instructions before and after trial • Provide jurors with audio or videotape of the trial presentation during deliberation • Permit notetaking and questions to the judge • Permit jurors to question witnesses • Use educational expert testimony and opposing expert testimony
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'