Discuss instances wherein jurors' sentiments are likely to play a role in decision-making. Should jury-judge discrepancies be attributed to a lack of competence on the part of juries?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Answers may vary.Jurors' sentiments play a role in decision-making when jurors believe that the "crime" is just too trivial for any punishment or at least for the expected punishment, and find the defendant not guilty to ensure that he or she will not be punished. In one case included in the Kalven and Zeisel study, a man was brought to trial for stealing two hot dogs. Because this was his second crime, he would have been sentenced to prison. Whereas the judge would have found him guilty, the jury voted 10-2 for acquittal.In other instances, jurors believe that the defendant has already been sufficiently sanctioned, and therefore punishment by the legal system is unnecessary. According to Kalven and Zeisel, in a case of income tax evasion, the following series of misfortunes plagued the defendant between the crime and the trial: "His home burned, he was seriously injured, and his son was killed. Later he lost his leg, his wife became seriously ill, and several major operations were necessary ... his wife gave birth to a child who was both blind and spastic." The jury found the defendant not guilty of income tax evasion, apparently concluding that he had already suffered divine retribution. The judge would have found him guilty.Jurors sometimes acquit (when judges would have convicted) because they believe that a law is unfair. In trials for the sale of beer and liquor to minors who were in the military, juries concluded that there was minimal social harm. Apparently they felt that if a young man can be forced to die for his country, "he can buy and consume a bottle of beer." Jury sentiments have surfaced in many cases involving "unpopular" crimes-for example, small misdemeanors such as traffic offenses and arguably victimless crimes such as prostitution. "Why waste our time over such minor affairs?" they might have been thinking.So jury-judge discrepancies should probably not be attributed to a lack of competence on the part of juries. Such disagreements are more appropriately attributed to the jury's interest in fairness, or its consideration of a range of factors that are broader than those considered by an individual judge.