‘Jurors drawn from the general public are unduly influenced by extra-evidential factors, and should be replaced by professional legal decision makers.’ To what extent does psychological research support this argument?
The above statement has an underlying suggestion that a jury made up from the general public is somehow more influenced by external factors than an expert jury (or perhaps single judge) presiding over a court situation. There is an aspect of whether or not a professional is better at detecting the truth in a situation or whether a group, made up of the general public, can balance itself with each individual member contributing their part to the debate. It has been recently noted (Mulberger, 2009) that in the early twentieth century members of juries in Germany were showing interest in psychological training. Historical studies such as this are of interest to modern day psychology as they show that jurists did not think that they had enough experience (as some would believe today) and that psychology was of benefit to a criminal jury. Psychological research has therefore much to offer a juror, however does such research prefer the expert to the layman? Try to avoid asking questions – instead clearly state the point that you are trying to make. Also, in your introduction you should clearly outline the different areas that you will cover in the main body of your essay, as well a briefly state your position with regard to the essay title.
Research on deception detection (O’Sullivan & Ekman, 2004) shows that while most people often fail to tell when others are lying, professional groups with a special interest or skill in deception (such as the police or certain interviewers) can achieve high accuracy in catching lies. Does research such as this suggest that having such a professional on a jury could aid the credibility of certain types of evidence (ie witness testimony). After all as Loftus (2007) suggests, eyewitness testimony tends to be seen by...