Fascinating journal article discussing juror bias and firearms use

[1911Tuner]

For a moment, put yourself in Suzie Soccermem's shoes. What you know about guns, you learned by watching Law and Order reruns and CSI Miami.

You're not at all comfortable around guns, and ask your gun owner friends...respctfully... to have them stashed safely away whenever you visit.

The defendant is on trial for an atteck that occurred in his front yard, and spilled over into his house, where he shot the attacker dead.

Are you more likely to feel that the defendant is a bad guy too, if he used:

An Ar-15 with a bayonet lug...
or a Model 94 Winchester that was hanging over the mantle?

A Glock 17...
or '73 Colt Single Action Army?

With a FMJ or solid lead bullet...
or a semi-exotic with a gaping hollowpoint and a name like "Devastator."

A double barrel shotgun...
or a Spas?

Or if the prosecutor produces a snapshot of you wearing:

a "Smile! God loves you! T-shirt...
or a tank top with a skull and "Kill'em all. Let God sort'em out"
printed on it?

If you go on gun boards and talk of exercising restraint...
or you talk of double-tapping the perp and "Two to the chest/One to the head and even the Jolly Green Giant will fall down dead."

Yes. The jury's perceptions of you, and their own personal trepidations regarding guns in general will weigh heavily on their decision. Bet on it.

Like my mama used to tell me:

"If you dress like a bum, people will think you are a bum."

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I was surprised by the observation from Anderson that teaching women to shoot "dis-empowers" them, which was corroborated through comments by feminist academicians examining the role of women using guns in mainstream cinema....

I think it's related to a cultural anti-self defense bias.

See, for example, Armed by Gary Kleck and Don Kates (Prometheus Books, 2001). On pages 116 - 121, they discuss various liberal, moral objections to the notion that one may be justified to defend himself.

Feminist Betty Frienden is cited as denouncing the trend of women to arm themselves for self defense as, "...a horrifying, obscene perversion of feminism...." Her ridiculous notion that , "...lethal violence even in self defense only engenders more violence and that gun control should override any personal need for safety...." is probably widely held in liberal circles. Indeed, according to Kleck and Kates, Mario Cuomo avowed that Bernie Goetz was morally wrong in shooting even if it was clearly necessary to resist felonious attack.

 

[HKUSP45C]

Ok, given the impartial jury notion instead of a jury of peers.

A juror who decides you are guilty for using a "scary looking" AR-15 in an otherwise justified shoot is not impartial.

Impartial just means the jury isn't on anyones side or payroll prior to the start of the trial. That's why we pick them randomly from a large pool and then allow both sides to dismiss (to a point) people with obvious biases toward the specific matters at hand.

By your criteria we'd never be able to have a jury trial because EVERYONE has MILLIONS of biases and prejudices. That doesn't preclude them from being impartial in all matters, however.

 

[9mm+]

Good point, fiddletown. Ridiculous, yes, but then again most of what comes from liberal academicians is not rooted in logic or pragmatism.

 

[General Geoff]

For a moment, put yourself in Suzie Soccermem's shoes. What you know about guns, you learned by watching Law and Order reruns and CSI Miami.

Better idea, let's say you're selected for a jury trial of a man being accused of counterfeiting. Everything you know about counterfeiting, you've learned by watching Law and Order and History Channel specials.

The man was raided on an anonymous tip that he was counterfeiting, and was found to have large bins of pennies that he was pressing into novelty souvenirs.
Would you be more likely to convict if:

A. the accused used a handpress, doing one penny at a time, or

B. the accused had an automated press, doing thousands of pennies an hour.



I don't know about you, but despite knowing very little about counterfeiting, I'm not about to go and judge the accused by the equipment he used. I'm going to look at the intent behind the coin pressing, whether he was trying to fraudulently pass them as official US coinage after pressing, and what the law actually states.

Back to your Suzie Soccer Mom scenario, I would do the same in her shoes. She's not an expert in self defense shooting, that doesn't mean she should jump to what she may or may not know about the equipment the defendant used in his shooting to pass judgment on him.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...She's not an expert in self defense shooting, that doesn't mean she should jump to what she may or may not know about the equipment the defendant used in his shooting to pass judgment on him.

And so you might wish to believe. But that doesn't mean that in the real world things like her impression of the equipment the defendant used, the way he comports himself, the way he dresses, etc., won't color how she evaluates the evidence. We know from interviewing jurors post verdict that such things do actually have an effect. And the wise and competent advocate takes such things into account in selecting a jury, preparing his client and presenting his case.

Those of us who have guns in the hope that we will not have to use them for self defense can make some choices in the equipment we use that could make our lawyer's job either easier or harder if we are ever unfortunate enough to have to rely on him to keep us out of jail.

 

[GEM]

Probably written by one of those 'university' type professors at a 'liberal' arts school . Wonder if he actually has an AR or a Glock? Think he trains?

Oh wait -

 

[General Geoff]

And so you might wish to believe. But that doesn't mean that in the real world things like her impression of the equipment the defendant used, the way he comports himself, the way he dresses, etc., won't color how she evaluates the evidence.

I said "should," not "would." I have no delusions that Suzie Soccer Mom will not, in fact, discriminate based on equipment, style of dress in court, etc.. I'm just saying she shouldn't, and that I wouldn't if placed in her shoes. This is an issue of critical and logical thought, not necessarily of pertinent firearms knowledge.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I said "should," not "would."...

Fine, but I prefer to focus on the way things actually are in the real world, understanding reality and understanding how to deal with reality to my advantage.

 

[Hawk]

I don't know about you, but despite knowing very little about counterfeiting, I'm not about to go and judge the accused by the equipment he used.

Dollars to donuts you were never subjected to a media blitz about "automated souvenir presses" in the run up to the "'94 automated souvenir press ban and omnibus crime control act" nor the breathless commentary when the "automated penny press ban" was set to sunset in '04.

You've never heard it called a "treasury style fully automatic coining machine suitable only for indiscriminate spraying of coins everywhere" regardless of its impact on our fragile economy upon which our children and their children rely.

Penny presses haven't been featured on daytime TV shows featuring gesticulating hosts teeing off on Tom Selleck. Automatic, even fully automatic, selective operation presses, have not been subject to a decades-long process of demonization that reached the majority of Suzie Soccermoms.

Bad analogy - no biscuit.

 

[General Geoff]

All it takes to deal with this unpleasant part of reality is to make sure the less-informed jurors are told about why the defendant chose to use the equipment he used. This would go toward dispelling their default notion that an AR-15 is only used by someone who is "looking to kill someone."

It would be especially useful to point out the cosmetic irrelevancies of the firearm by pulling an Officer Pyle and demonstrating that the same exact firearm can look as evil or as harmless as they want to see it.



edit;

Bad analogy - no biscuit.

haha, never thuoght about the media influence. thanks for making me laugh though

 

[lexjj]

GEM - thanks for writing the article. I think it is very well done.

I suspect that like many other kinds of discrimination, the effects can be mitigated if they are known in advance and planned for. It would be interesting to have after-the-fact interviews with the "jurors" to know how they appraised the various "defendants."

It could be, for example, that they tended to assume that the females were ignorant of firearms, scared, and not in control of themselves or the situation. There could be background info that could counter that, e.g. if the woman shot regularly, was a hunter, had training in self-defense, etc.

The article seems to suggest the opposite conclusion. Women who were portrayed as proficient (or in the case of female police officers, professional) were MORE likely to be found guilty and sentenced longer. It seems to me (and the article suggests) that it is more about breaking out of traditional gender roles. Competent females and incompetent males were punished. Competent males and incompetent females were not treated as harshly. I think that is part of the AR-15 problem. The perception is that you have to know what you are doing to handle an AR, but any old gal could pick up a revolver.

I think it would have been interesting to see how women shooters were affected when they were defending children. Because then you take two gender stereotypes and make them confront one another. If I were trying a case like that, that would probably be my strategy.

All it takes to deal with this unpleasant part of reality is to make sure the less-informed jurors are told about why the defendant chose to use the equipment he used. This would go toward dispelling their default notion that an AR-15 is only used by someone who is "looking to kill someone."

It would be especially useful to point out the cosmetic irrelevancies of the firearm by pulling an Officer Pyle and demonstrating that the same exact firearm can look as evil or as harmless as they want to see it.

Maybe that would work, maybe it wouldn't, but you would have to get over several objections from the prosecutor to do it (I think they are winnable, but think billable hours here). Additionally, at the least you would need to hire an expert witness. They are not cheap. Overall though, It would only mitigate one of your problems. That probably won't overcome the gender stereotyping at play here.

 

[Zoogster]

So the obvious expected thing, scary looking guns, even if weaker than many common hunting rifles result in higher conviction rates, and longer sentences.
Pistol grips on guns get you into trouble if you have to defend yourself.



The more interesting thing is female jurors give higher convictions and longer sentences to people prosecuted after a self defense defense incident.
Female jurors give the highest sentences to female defendants who shot a female criminal.
Less to female defendants who shot a male criminal, and even less to males who shot a male criminal.
Essentially the more women involved in the entire process the longer the sentence and higher the conviction rate.

What this shows is those who females cannot relate to get convicted and sentenced much more harshly. They can relate least to other women who shoot another woman, and most to a man who shoots another man.
But no matter who you are you want as few women in the jury as possible.

The article seems to suggest the opposite conclusion. Women who were portrayed as proficient (or in the case of female police officers, professional) were MORE likely to be found guilty and sentenced longer.

Yes the article shows this. Rather than seeing a proficient woman as out of control the jurors and especially the other female jurors are least able to relate to a more 'predatory' woman, and consequently see them as worse than simply a strong male protector. They are the least able to understand such a 'predatory' woman who defends herself who shoots another woman (who they probably identify with more.)

Gender roles reinforce that. A strong man defending thier family is as ancient as human history. A woman is naturally more loving and nurturing.
Most boys pretend to fight and kill as children naturally, and girls pretend to raise a family or get married. That is simply the way it is. Boys are more prone to like toy weapons, and girls to role play loving family roles.
So a woman who is viewed as into shooting, self defense, hunting etc is harder for jurors, especially female jurors to identify with. And especially if they killed another female.
While other men are most able to relate to other men using violence in self defense, and other woman more able to relate to a man using violence.
'Violent' or aggressive (perceived) males are the norm, whether in sports, recreation or self defense, and even many women can likely relate such activities to a father or brother. Aggressive women (or those perceived to be) the exception.

 

[NotSoFast]

Interesting read. Brings to mind another question... Is a person with a carry permit more likely to be excused from the jury on a shooting case, or picked?

Since both the prosecution and the defense have the ability to ask that a juror be dismissed, I would say that someone who has a permit to carry would be dismissed quickly. The prosecutor most likely would want that because the potential juror would probably side with the defendant. Or that would be the reasoning whether the juror really would or not.

This is based on my own experience in a situation where my experience seemed to be in line with what the defendant was charged with. I sat in the juror's seat for a total of 15 seconds.

 

[Cosmoline]

It's a good argument for excluding the weapon from evidence. In a self defense case there's no real relevance to it, anyway.

 

[General Geoff]

It's a good argument for excluding the weapon from evidence. In a self defense case there's no real relevance to it, anyway.

Hadn't thought of that. Excellent idea.


It might leave jurors wondering what the weapon used was, though. And that could be better or worse than disclosure, depending on the juror.

 

[Zoogster]

It's a good argument for excluding the weapon from evidence. In a self defense case there's no real relevance to it, anyway.

A good argument for keeping women off a self defense jury as much as possible too. The more women, the higher the likelihood of conviction and the longer the likely sentence whether you are a male or female defendant.

 

[General Geoff]

That's... a very sad reflection on how most women are (still) raised.

 

[rojocorsa]

Things like this in modern day is why I don't really have faith in the jury system.

 

[lexjj]

It's a good argument for excluding the weapon from evidence. In a self defense case there's no real relevance to it, anyway.

Neat idea. I'll think about it, but I just don't see any judge issuing an order to exclude the weapon. The prosecution will say it is probative of the defendant's state of mind, among other things (which is the key issue in the case).

Re: juror strikes
Every state panels juries differently, so it is hard to say with particularly great precision whether or not a CCW holder is going to be struck. There are two ways to strike a juror: Peremptory Challenge and For-Cause Challenge. A CCW should not be able to create a for-cause challenge (otherwise no one with a drivers license would be able to sit on a vehicular manslaughter case). The prosecution would have to exercise a peremptory challenge. Peremptory challenges are limited, and often the prosecution has less than the defense. There are ways to "manufacture" for-cause challenges, but just as many ways to stop it. Some states have attorneys interview jurors one by one until they get the required number. Some states start with a panel and then excuse and add as necessary. Depending on the method, our hypothetical CCW holder may or may not get struck.

 

[HKUSP45C]

Things like this in modern day is why I don't really have faith in the jury system.

What, I'm just dying to know, would be the superior alternative?

 

[Trebor]

Excellent article. Thanks for posting it.

If anyone commented here *without* reading the article, please go back and read the article, look at the studies and how they were conducted, and then see if you've changed your mind at all on any part of the issue.

 

[THE DARK KNIGHT]

You guys can dance around the notion, and try to stretch logic, or act as if you live in some alternate, logical universe (planet Vulcan? Say hi to Mr. Spock for me) but the fact of the matter is Weapons evoke deep, emotional, even primal, reactions and feelings in people, little of it based on logic, and if you do not understand that you are either naive or lying to yourself.

It doesn't help that in addition to these hard-wired, probably instinctual reactions, public perception has been altered heavily. Terms exist today that didn't 20, 10, even 4-5 years ago.

Bushmaster XM-15 & a box of SS109 = "Fully Semi Automatic Armor Piercing Cop Killer Bullet firing Assault Rifle"

 

[eye5600]

Way back when, my father was on a jury. I don't remember if it was a homicide or not, but there was a gun involved. Dad described it as a short-barreled shotgun with a pistol grip, IIRC. Possibly illegal on the face of it, but the court case was not about the type of gun or possession of it.

I guess the defendant took the stand, and at one point, was given the weapon to hold for some reason. Dad noted he held it only by the barrel, and never held it by the grip in the usual way. Being clever, Dad inferred that was the defense attorney's instruction so the jury didn't seem him looking like he was about to shot somebody.

All these details matter.

 

[atomd]

I'm not surprised by those findings one bit. I get a lot more reactions from people when they see an AR than a muzzle loader or something of that sort. No one cares that a .223 round isn't nearly as powerful as say...a .375 H&H that might be sitting right next to it...they just see something that looks like what they've seen in movies and think it's some nuclear killing machine of ultimate destruction.

"Two to the chest/One to the head and even the Jolly Green Giant will fall down dead."

I've always been wondering how to kill him! He's always giving me a threatening look whenever I go to make some green beans. Scary.