Skip to Main Content
202
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
Altmetric
 
Translator disclaimer

Justifying the statutory exclusion of convicted felons from jury service, lawmakers and courts allege that convicted felons harbor an inherent bias, making them sympathetic to the plight of criminal defendants and skeptical of the prosecution. Prior research suggests that a felony conviction is a significant predictor of such pre-trial biases. The purpose of this research is to further explore that finding, examining the potential impact of lifetime incarceration and multiple felony convictions on pre-trial biases. To do so, we measured the pre-trial biases of 240 otherwise eligible jurors with a felony criminal history. Results reveal that while the presence of multiple felony convictions is a statistically significant predictor of a pro-defense/anti-prosecution pre-trial bias, length of incarceration is not, suggesting that criminal justice system contact (procedure), not punishment (outcome), contributes to the formation of a pro-defense/anti-prosecution pre-trial bias among convicted felons. Results support prior research demonstrating that criminal justice procedures are stronger predictors of convicted felons’ views than are punishment outcomes. These findings also expose the circularity of the inherent bias rationale, a justification for excluding convicted felons from a process that spawns the pre-trial biases allegedly warranting exclusion. In this way, the criminal justice system helps to build biased jurors.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee at University of California at Irvine and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Notes

1 The criteria require that prospective jurors must: (1) be citizens of the United States, (2) be 18 years of age, (3) be domiciliaries of the State of California, (4) be residents of the jurisdiction they are summoned to serve, (5) not have been convicted of malfeasance in office or a felony, (6) possess sufficient knowledge of the English language (sufficient to understand court proceedings), (7) not be already serving as grand or trial jurors in any court in the State, and (8) not be the subject of a conservatorship (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 203(a)(1)-(8) 2010).

2 The average amount of missing data for imputed variables was 5.8%. Since predictors in the imputation model were missing at such a small rate (3%), dropping these observations via Listwise deletion is unlikely to bias model estimates (Acock, 2013 Acock, A.C. (2013). A gentle introduction to Stata. (3rd Ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press. [Google Scholar]).

 

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.