Perception vs.

Justice: The Role of Social Bias in Courtroom Decisions

Introduction
Almost everywhere in the world, the judiciary is the ultimate authority. The idea of judiciary
is a foundational component of modern democratic societies, encompassing the concepts of
justice, fairness, and rule of law. At its core, the judiciary protects individual rights and
liberties. It ensures that the laws passed by the legislative branch are read and administered
impartially. The judiciary plays an important role in sustaining the social compact between
citizens and the state by resolving disputes and administering justice. Furthermore, it acts as a
check on the executive and legislature. It protects against abuses of power and breaches of
constitutional values. In essence, the judiciary is more than just a tool for resolving legal
disputes. It is a crucial pillar of democratic government, tasked with maintaining the legal
system's integrity and advancing the principles of equity, accountability, and the rule of law.

There is a complex link between social/popular impressions and stereotypes and the course of
court procedures, questioning the assumption of total judicial impartiality. Despite the
judiciary's dedication to justice and equity, these social prejudices frequently permeate
judicial procedures, impacting decisions and results. It is evident based on critical analysis
and synthesis of available material, that understanding and correcting these biases is vital for
establishing a truly just and equitable judicial system. In this paper, I argue that social
perceptions and stereotypes play a huge role in how courtroom proceedings unfold regardless
of how free and fair the judicial system is supposed to be.

Stereotypes and preconceived notions

According to research, jurors may be affected by defendant characteristics such as
appearance, race, and socioeconomic status. Defendants from stereotyped socioeconomic
categories are more likely to be found guilty for the offence they are charged with
(McKimmie, Blake M). The makeup and behaviour of a jury are frequently indicative of
social prejudices. Social perceptions can gently shape the deliberate process, influencing
jurors' conclusions based on their backgrounds, views, and society conventions. This dynamic
is investigated in research that revealed that jurors' prejudices, whether implicit or explicit,
can have a considerable impact on their perception of evidence and the subsequent verdict.
Social impressions can have an impact on legal professionals such as judges, prosecutors, and
defence attorneys. Their views and conclusions might be influenced by the same prejudices
and preconceptions as jurors. Studies have shown that racial or gender prejudices may impact
prosecutors' decisions to pursue harsher punishments. In the current era, social media and
information technology have had a significant influence on judicial procedures. Even before a
trial begins, the rapid dissemination of information (or misinformation) may sway public
opinion and create a biased environment. The digital era has changed the landscape of pretrial
publicity, with social media platforms frequently forming narratives and affecting potential
jurors' impressions (Maroney 2011).

Types of stereotypes
Racial prejudice is one of the most common stereotypes that influence court procedures.
People of various races or ethnicities, notably Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous people, may
be seen as more prone to commit specific sorts of crimes or engage in criminal activities. This
can lead to racial profiling, harsher sentence, and an increased risk of erroneous convictions.
Gender prejudices can also impact judicial decisions. Men may be viewed as more aggressive
or violent, which influences the gravity of accusations or the severity of penalties in
situations involving violence. Women, on the other hand, may confront prejudices about
being emotional or untrustworthy, which can weaken their credibility as witnesses or victims,
especially in situations of sexual assault or domestic violence. Individuals from lower
socioeconomic origins may confront prejudices that suggest they are more prone to
participate in criminal activity or are less believable. Wealthier defendants may be viewed as
more reputable or trustworthy, which might influence jury sympathies and result in lesser
penalties or acquittals. Younger offenders may be stereotyped as irresponsible or prone to
risky activity, which might lead to heavier sentences in an effort to "teach them a lesson." In
contrast, elder defendants may be perceived as less capable of committing certain crimes,
thus leading to more forgiving punishment. Defendants with mental health concerns may be
wrongly portrayed as violent or unpredictable. This can impact not only judgements but also
the kind of punishments imposed, with a probable bias towards punitive rather than
rehabilitative approaches. Media portrayals of crimes can generate or reinforce prejudices
about specific groups of individuals or types of crime, influencing how jurors interpret the
case at hand. High-profile cases can result in a bombardment of media attention, which may
shape a narrative, favourable or negative, about the persons involved. The physical
appearance and courtroom demeanour of defendants might also contribute to biased
judgements. For example, seeming dishevelled, unemotional, or too emotional might elicit
preconceptions, influencing how jurors understand facts and testimony. Media narratives and
public perception play an important role in establishing the landscape of court proceedings,
frequently affecting decisions that go beyond the evidence and legal arguments presented.
Media sources frequently create narratives around high-profile cases, selectively providing
facts and views to shape the public's perception of the case. This framing can have an impact
on how the public, especially potential jurors, perceive the defendant's character, the victim's
credibility, and the general validity of the judicial processes.

The Impact of Social Perceptions on Legal Proceedings (Discussion)

Pretrial publicity can shape public opinion and create biases even before a trial begins.
Studies have shown that news coverage, especially if negative, can influence potential jurors,
swaying their opinions about a defendant's guilt or innocence. The pressure of media
narratives and public perception can lead to legal decisions that aim to align with or
counteract public sentiment, potentially leading to verdicts that are influenced by factors
outside the legal evidence and arguments presented in court. Media narratives and public
perception play a powerful role in affecting court trials, from influencing jury selection and
public sentiment to pressuring the legal system to conform to the court of public opinion. The
intersection of media influence and legal proceedings underscores the challenge of
maintaining judicial impartiality and fairness in the age of instant communication and
widespread media coverage. In conclusion, media narratives and public perception play a
powerful role in affecting court trials, from influencing jury selection and public sentiment to
pressuring the legal system to conform to the court of public opinion. The intersection of
media influence and legal proceedings underscores the challenge of maintaining judicial
impartiality and fairness in the age of instant communication and widespread media
coverage. Sensationalized reporting can lead to public outcry, putting pressure on the judicial
system to deliver a verdict that aligns with public sentiment, rather than based solely on
evidence. For example, during the Amber Heard and Johnny Depp trial, social media was
filled with comments, memes, and selective facts, which had a huge impact on public image
and conversation. The circulation of private information and facts related to the case were
available to the entire world and the jury that was supposed to be kept away from what the
public has to say about the case was made aware of the same. This case is an example of how
public perception can effect jury’s decision. This preconceived judgment can lead to
confirmation bias, where jurors pay more attention to evidence that confirms their initial
beliefs, overlooking contradictory evidence. Stereotypes based on race, gender,
socioeconomic status, and other characteristics can significantly affect judicial outcomes. For
example, Moreover, even if there were some statistical support for the view that jurors tend to
be especially sympathetic to defendants of their own race, it would be profoundly wrong to
enshrine any such view in our constitutional jurisprudence (Underwood, Barbara D). Racial
bias in the courtroom can lead to disproportionately harsh sentences for minority defendants.
When Jake urges the jurors to envision the victim as a white girl during a murder trial, the
atmosphere in the courtroom changes noticeably. This follows Jake's correctly awarded
verdict. A white jury must empathize with a black criminal to reach a just verdict. Jake,
enables that response type by removing race from the situation (Rodriguez, Tanya). So, the
verdict following Jake's closing speech was an acknowledgment of the widespread societal
preconceptions that present themselves in a courtroom through verdicts and jury decisions. In
To Kill a Mockingbird, Atticus Finch defends Tom in court. There was damning evidence to
corroborate Tom's testimony, but because the white community saw Tom as the "other," he
was denied a fair trial due to his race. This is proven by the jury's quick decision, despite
Atticus' strong argument. The discrimination was not only visible, in the sense that the black
guy was simply looked down upon by society, but it also cost him his life. Similarly, gender
stereotypes can influence judgments in cases related to sexual assault, domestic violence, and
custody disputes. Socioeconomic status also plays a critical role in judicial processes.
Wealthier defendants often afford better legal representation, which can lead to more
favourable outcomes. In contrast, those from less affluent backgrounds may receive harsher
penalties, highlighting a disparity in how justice is administered. The media can shape and
reflect public opinion, influencing the attitudes of jurors, judges, and attorneys.
All the cases and scenarios mentioned above are very popular and were a live demonstration
of how public perception and stereotypes can affect court trials. This is a point that stand out
as courts are only supposed to look at the evidence and testimonies and cross examination for
a free and fair trial and the same is a necessary condition for jury members as well. Court
information being widely played in the media and the public having their own trial on the
side is a blatant violation of what the judiciary stands for.

Battling social perceptions and stereotypes in a courtroom

Social perceptions can lead to disproportionate sentencing, where defendants of certain racial,
gender, or socioeconomic backgrounds receive harsher penalties compared to others. This
discrepancy is often a reflection of societal biases rather than the objective severity of the
crime. It has been observed that racial minorities, particularly African American and Hispanic
defendants, are more likely to receive severe sentences compared to their white counterparts
(Spohn 2000). The influence of social perceptions can result in miscarriages of justice, where
individuals are wrongfully convicted or acquitted based on societal biases rather than factual
evidence. The case studies in "To Kill a Mockingbird" and real-life examples like the Central
Park Five case highlight how racial and social biases can lead to wrongful convictions. Social
perceptions also play a critical role in plea bargaining, with defendants from marginalized
communities often pressured into accepting plea deals due to fears of facing biased juries or
harsher sentences if they go to trial. the negotiation process in plea bargains can be skewed by
these societal biases, affecting the fairness of the outcomes (Redlich 2010). While the judicial
system aims to be free and fair, social perceptions and biases significantly influence
courtroom proceedings. Through awareness, education, and reform, the impact of these
perceptions can be mitigated, promoting a more equitable and just legal system. The
challenge lies in continuously striving to balance the scales of justice, ensuring that they are
not unduly tipped by societal biases and preconceptions. The pressure of media narratives and
public perception can lead to legal decisions that aim to align with or counteract public
sentiment, potentially leading to verdicts that are influenced by factors outside the legal
evidence and arguments presented in court. Legal professionals, including judges and
attorneys, have a responsibility to mitigate the influence of social perceptions. This includes
ensuring diverse jury selection, promoting legal literacy, and adhering to ethical standards
that prioritize fairness and impartiality. Implementing technological and procedural reforms,
such as blind auditions in jury selection and enhanced training programs for legal
professionals, can help reduce the impact of social biases. Transparency in the legal process,
along with education programs, can also play a vital role in building public trust and reducing
the influence of preconceived notions.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the importance of social judgements in trial procedures cannot be emphasised.
Despite the judiciary's dedication to impartiality, cultural prejudices continue to influence
legal results, sustaining structural inequality. Recognising and eliminating these prejudices is
critical to maintaining justice and guaranteeing equitable legal protection. By creating a more
inclusive and fair legal environment, society may get closer to realising the dream of a
completely just judicial system. The idea of othering describes the ways by which individuals
are marginalised in the legal arena, reinforcing structural inequities. By recognising and
eliminating these biases, society can get closer to achieving the goals of justice and
impartiality in the legal system. The cinematic representation of courtroom dramas in "To
Kill a Mockingbird" and "A Time to Kill" provides a strong prism through which to
investigate the impact of societal views on the course of justice. These films not only
entertain, but also prompt critical thought about the ongoing issues of ensuring fairness and
equity in the legal system. As we battle with systematic bias and unfairness, the lessons
learned from these cinematic storylines are as pertinent as ever.

Bibliography
 RODRIGUEZ, TANYA. “Feeling the Gaze: Narrative Empathy in ‘A Time to Kill.’”
Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, vol. 69, no. 3/4, 2013, pp. 701–15. JSTOR,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23785887. Accessed 9 Apr. 2024.

 McKimmie, Blake M. “Stereotypes in the Courtroom.” New Directions for Law in

Australia: Essays in Contemporary Law Reform, edited by RON LEVY et al., ANU
Press, 2017, pp. 173–80. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1ws7wbh.19.
Accessed 9 Apr. 2024.

 Underwood, Barbara D. “Ending Race Discrimination in Jury Selection: Whose Right

Is It, Anyway?” Columbia Law Review, vol. 92, no. 4, 1992, pp. 725–74. JSTOR,
https://doi.org/10.2307/1122969. Accessed 9 Apr. 2024.

 Devine, D. J. (2012). Jury Decision Making: The State of the Science. New York
University Press.
 Johnson, S. D. (2010). "Racial Bias in the Decision to Seek the Death Penalty." Ohio
State Journal of Criminal Law, 7(2), 607–622.
 Maroney, T. A. (2011). "The Emotional Juror: Law, Policy, and the Management of
Emotion in the Legal System." Duke Law Journal, 60(4), 837–878.
 Redlich, A. D. (2010). "The Susceptibility of Juvenile Offenders to Plea Bargains."
Law and Psychology Review, 34, 211–236.
 Spohn, C. (2000). "Thirty Years of Sentencing Reform: The Quest for a Racially
Neutral Sentencing Process." Criminal Justice, 3(2), 427–501.