Should character be considered in the courtroom?
Should character be considered in the courtroom?
The American justice system relies heavily on the jury to make a fair decision on the criminality of defendant. While the jury are told to make judgments based upon the facts, there are other various factors that can sway their opinion. Inherent bias is ideally removed through the jury selection process. However, something that cannot be entirely controlled is their opinion of the defendant. Lawyers use this to sway the opinion of the jury. They focus on things that have nothing to do with the facts of the case, but have all to do with the character of the defendant. This leads to jurors not focusing on the facts of the case but about how they feel about the defendant. This leads me to wonder, should character even be considered in the courtroom in the first place? For example, in the case of Darlie Routier, many attributed her guilty verdict to the character assassination put forth to by the prosecution. She was accused of being materialistic, even pointing out how she had gotten breast implants. In reality, these facets to her character have nothing to do with the facts of the crime itself. If the jury had been solely focused on the strict facts of the case they may have reached a different verdict. In the end a defendant is not being judged on his or her morals or character, they are being judged on whether or not they committed a crime. Therefore, we should strongly consider whether someone's morals or character should even be considered in a courtroom.
I agree that this information regarding Darlie Routiers materialistic side of her character should not have been mentioned in this court case because it gave the chance to both the public and the jurors to create a bias based upon this. Once bias is created then the trial becomes unfair, as the jury's opinion becomes skewed to one side. Although, some characteristics are certainly OK to include if it were something like a mental illness that could have possibly had connections to the reasoning behind the crime, or any other red flags that relate to the circumstance of the crime. But, in Routiers case her economic status was used to define her and that was not acceptable as it had no correlation to what she was being accused and possibly convicted for.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree with this post. I don't think that someone's character should be considered during the trial because it has nothing to do with the crime. On the other hand however, knowing someone's character might be important with regards to understanding the reasons that the person could have for committing their crime. Also, it is important to be able to get into the person's head and try to understand why they could possibly commit a crime, like murder for example. The other side of the argument could be that when someone is judged in a trial only by their character, they start being judged only by that, and only minimally by their crime.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really interesting topic and I think it depends on the crime committed as to whether or not character should be involved. In some cases, I agree with what you said about how the defendants character and personality has nothing to do with the case but in others it may be a key factor. On the other hand, the defense also use character because they often try to portray their defendant as an innocent person who was caught at the wrong place at the wrong time. Overall, I think it depends on the type of case and the crime that is committed as to whether or not the trial should include people's character.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting concept, and I think it also brings up the issue of the relocation of trials and how that may naturally create for a jury that is already biased. Per the example of the Darlie Routier case, the trial was moved to Kerrville, Texas, and this served as an advantage for the prosecution. Kerrville, a very rural and conservative part of the state with conviction rates over 95%, provided a jury of people who were not similar to the Routiers and were bound to judge her from the beginning- especially once the prosecution presented material from which the jurors could base even more judgments against her, even though the character assassination did not actually prove her guilt. Another example of how moving a trial can significantly impact what evidence is likely to sway the jury towards one side or another is in the case of Rodney King. The defense lawyers for the accused police officers argued the trial should be moved because of the intense pretrial publicity in downtown Los Angeles, where the crime happened. They moved it to conservative white Simi Valley, where there ended up being no African Americans on the jury. In contrast, some cases probably would be more fair if they were moved- for example, the case of Pamela Smart. There was rampant publicity surrounding this case, but the case was not moved from its New Hampshire location. Knowing she was working at a local school, the jury may have already believed Smart was immoral because she had an affair with a student, and this fact may have played a significant role in their judgment of whether she was responsible for the murder of her husband.
ReplyDeleteThis is tricky because we've seen it work both ways. If character had been brought in more in the OJ case, if they had brought up the fact that he was power hungry and did anything for fame, then he may have gotten a different verdict. They verdict that I believe he deserved. But if Darlie's charcter wasn't taken into question she might be free.
ReplyDelete