The Future of Capital Trials: An Exploration of Procedural Justice, Race, and Willingness to Serve Again

• Published date: 01 June 2011
• Date: 01 June 2011
• DOI: 10.1177/0734016810384443
• Subject Matter: Articles

The Future of Capital

Trials: An Exploration of

Procedural Justice, Race,

and Willingness to

Serve Again

Megan Denver

1

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to determine whether race (a juror’s race, racial composition of the

jury, race of the jury foreperson, and defendant–victim racial composition) and perceptions of

procedural justice affect capital jurors’ willingness to serve again. Using logistic regression, data

from 662 capital jurors are analyzed. A direct test of procedural justice theory is not supported

by these findings; however, feeling emotionally upset about the experience is strongly associated

with unwillingness to serve again. In addition, those who served on a White defendant–Black

victim case were more likely to report future willingness to serve compared to jurors on White–

White cases. When the regression model is divided into subsamples (White jurors only and

Black jurors only), feeling emotionally upset is still a strong indicator for both groups, and both

Black and White jurors are less willing to serve again when the victim in their case was White.

In addition, part-time employment was a significant indicator of unwillingness to serve again for Black

jurors. Policy implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Keywords

capital punishment, juries, race and crime/justice

Introduction

In the last few decades, researchers have learned a significant amount about how people view justice

and how these perceptions influence attitudes and behavior. Distributive justice theories, which ana-

lyze perceptions of fair outcomes, were dominant explanations for interpreting justice until the

1970s (Tyler & Blader, 2000). However, limitations with distributive justice theories led to a shift

to procedural justice, or the belief that whether the process and procedures are fair, the outcome

(even when it is unfavorable) will be viewed as acceptable (Lind & Tyler, 1988). Procedural justice

1

Urban Institute, USA

Corresponding Author:

Megan Denver, 2100 M Street NW, Washington DC 20005, USA

Email: mdenver@urban.org

Criminal Justice Review

36(2) 183-200

ª2011 Georgia State University

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0734016810384443

http://cjr.sagepub.com

has become an increasingly popular explanation for a range of criminal justice issues, such as

domestic violence reporting and court experiences (Gover, Brank, & MacDonald, 2007; Hickman

& Simpson, 2003), rape survivors’ involvement in sentencing (Konradi & Burger, 2000), and

correctional officials’ job satisfaction (Lambert, Hogan, & Griffin, 2007).

Most capital punishment research focuses on large-scale issues of procedural justice (such as

racial biases in the system or concerns about sentences being arbitrarily imposed) instead of how

individuals involved in the decision making view the process. Specifically, whether race or fair pro-

cedures during a trial influence or whether a capital juror would (or would not) want to serve again

have been overlooked. Taking these issues into consideration offers an increased understanding of

whether jurors perceive the process as fair, whether race plays a role, and possible implications for

the criminal justice system. Although individual jurors may never be asked to serve again on a cap-

ital case, negative experiences might affect jurors’ willingness to serve on any type of future trial,

their perceptions of the justice system at large, and the dissemination of these negative experiences

to those they interact with (possibly affecting potential jurors).

This article explores how race and perceptions of procedural justice during jury deliberations

affect jurors’ willingness to serve on future capital cases. The conceptual differences between juror

satisfaction and willingness to serve again will be discussed first, followed by an integration of the

relevant capital jury research on race and procedural justice (the two factors believed to have

the strongest impact on future willingness to serve). Using data from the Capital Jury Project (CJP),

race and perceptions of procedural justice will then be analyzed to determine which factors influence

jurors’ willingness to serve again on a capital trial and the implications of these findings.

Willingness to Serve on a Jury

Although jury service is legally involuntary, citizens who are summoned to serve avoid jury duty for

a variety of reasons. Reported reasons include a lack of motivation, the inability to serve (which

refers to human capital, such as available time and childcare needs), and social capital (such as class

status or education; Dote, 2006; Losh, Wasserman, & Wasserman, 2000; Munsterman, Munsterman,

Lynch, & Penrod, 1991). The National Center for State Courts reported that of the estimated 32 mil-

lion people summoned to serve on a jury in the United States, approximately 19%were excused for

either financial or medical reasons (3 million citizens) or simply failed to appear (3 million citizens;

Mize, Hannaford-Agor, & Waters, 2007). After accounting for other reasons jurors do not appear to

serve (disqualifications, undeliverable summons due to incorrect addresses, cancelled or postponed

court cases, etc.), an estimated 8 million citizens report for jury duty every year (Mize et al., 2007).

Dote (2006) noted that when jurors fail to appear or request exemptions, this shapes the venire (or

group of potential jurors questioned for jury service) and ultimately creates a jury of citizens who are

more willing to serve rather than an accurate representation of society. In addition, negative experi-

ences may influence attempts to avoid future jury service for both the juror who is personally

involved and other citizens who hear of unfavorable accounts (Diamond, 1993). These factors have

important implications for courts, which have transitioned from penalizing jurors to offering more

incentives to serve (such as deferment; flexibility with scheduling; and nontraditional methods of

compensation, such as tax credits; King, 1996).

Although some jurors openly report negative aspects of serving on a jury, most also agree that

serving on a jury is an important civic responsibility and provides a voice to the public (Losh

et al., 2000) and those who serve on juries tend to have positive views of the court system (American

Bar Association, 2004; Diamond, 1993; Rottman, 1998). In a national study of 1,029 adults, the

American Bar Association (2004) reported that most Americans believe serving on a jury is an

important civic duty (84%), do not believe it is a burden (75%), and would prefer a jury over a judge

if they were a defendant (75%). However, Rose, Ellison, and Diamond (2008) found racial and

184 Criminal Justice Review 36(2)