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

AuthorMegan Denver
Published date01 June 2011
Date01 June 2011
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1177/0734016810384443
Subject MatterArticles
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)

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT