Roll Number

Email ID

Gender Bias in Jury Decision-Making: Implications and Need for Reforms

Introduction

Purpose

Gender discrimination occurs as the key problem of conformity with the principles of

impartiality and liberty. The opening part of the essay will hold the domain of context likewise

where I will discuss gender bias in legal proceedings along with their presence in wide-range

jurisdictions and negative consequences. As history demonstrates, the vocabulary of laws is a

medium where porous and invisible gender biases have been thriving by dictating whether or not

there are juries in cases, how the verdicts are given, and of what kind, or what the punishment is.

Such biases often take the form of insidious and destructive yet subconscious trends, which

determine value judgments, credibility, and the seriousness of the offense (Dinos et al., 2015).

Furthermore, reforms regarding structure would be necessary to neutralize the juridical decisions

involving gender bias. Race and gender sometimes interactively emerge as the issues which in

turn can give way to a thicker analysis of biases in trials (Dinos et al., 2015). The judge, thus,

more than any other individual, should take Jurors' biases into account, which makes judicial
regulations emphasizing his participation in ensurin 1g a just trial a must (Kirshenbaum & Miller,

2021). The legal reforms here attempt to bring about a case tried and tested for impartiality and

fairness, to provide justice to every person tied to that case.

Importance

Although we research to get an in-depth perception of gender biases in the judicial

system, their impact is based on the court’s step of jury decision-making. The study through

analysis of existing literature, seeks to discover the essential components that are usually used by

members of the jury to discriminate or favor one party of litigants. The end product consists of

imparting the learning acquired to identify the loopholes in reforms that could be conducted to

achieve more equal and just legal environments. Subsequently, the paper will carry out case

examples that will focus on the role of gender biases in those court outcomes. This discussion

will show the numerous ways in which gender biases are allowed and the legal imbalance that

comes with it. The study will go on to examine the importance of gender biases in determining

how jurors see a particular case and urge clear-cut con 2clusions (Du, 2022). Gender bias as one

of the many issues in juror decisions makes jurists doubt the legal system's contributions and

fairness of trial outcomes. The impressive concern of gender on the jurors' perception, as well as

1
Dinos, S., Burrowes, N., Hammond, K., & Cunliffe, C., "A Systematic Review of Juries’ Assessment of Rape Victims:

Do Rape Myths Impact on Juror Decision-Making?," International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 43, no. 1 (2015):

36–49, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2014.07.001.

2. Dinos et al., "A Systematic Review," 42.

3. Du, Y., "The Effect of Defendant Gender on Jurors’ Decision-Making," University of Baltimore Law Review 52, no. 1

(2022): Article 2, https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr/vol52/iss1/2.

4. Du, "The Effect of Defendant Gender," 15.

2
judgment, and their decisions, has been rigorously studied, making apparent the unfair

discrimination between men and women, especially in the area of criminal law. Historical

contexts illustrate the stubborn sexism head displayed in the court systems in the way of female

juror lists to the biased sentencing procedures that trace to society’s values. They are a reflection

of the attitude or beliefs of a person in common and an acknowledgment of whether the

information is trustworthy or not (Dinos et al., 2015).

Over centuries, stereotypes about the two genders have been firmly established in many

local laws. Needless to say, this has caused unfair conduct, and the injustice was widespread.

Women were prevented from participating in jury selection, and the legal system perpetuated

biased sentencing methodologies that mirrored and bolstered the prevailing social codes on how

people, especially women, should be treated. Numerous times, women were deliberately set

aside as the law enforcers encountered snags about their level of credibility and performance.

Historically there are very many examples showing that gender consideration has influenced

many legal procedures, especially when it comes to judgment rather than evidence and fairness

of law (Elek et al., 2013).

Theoretical Framework

Theory including stereotype threat and psychological theories on bias regarding gender shed

lamp on the ways through which gender biases affect jury decisions (Yetter & Lee, 2021). When

people experience stereotype threat they risk confirming certain negative stereotypes about their

group, which can, in turn, cause jurors' perceptions to change as a result of gender stereotypes

that are present in the courtroom. The perception of gender put on by the community is the major

factor that misguides the jury on evidence and making decisions. Considering that for example,
female defendants might be perceived as more dangerous based on societal expectations,

malefactors' being found guilty will be associated with evidence presented or not.

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism of the bias of gender concerns the discriminative system that people

have, which involves preferential treatment and prejudice against people based on their sex

which they are gender, and normally end up having unequal opportunities or treatment. In the

legal system, gender bias can come in diverse forms, e.g. stereotyping of people’s behaviors and

assertions on what they can or cannot be done based on their gender, different treatment in trials

of law, or discrimination in sentence outcomes (Yetter & Lee, 2021). Jury determination is a

description of the procedure related to how a jury concludes a trial. With this they are charged

with evaluating evidence, listening to witness testimonies, and applying the law to decide

whether the defendant is guilty or is innocent.

Gender Stereotype

Meaux, Cox, and Kopkin (2018) report Stereotype threat represents the effect where being in the

position of risk to verify unfavorable stereotypes about their social groups, people demonstrate

anxiety or a decrease in performance. Jury members can be affected by the threat of stereotypes

which causes their perception and judgment to vary in dimension of gender especially when it

appears as stereotypes in court. Gender bias continues to prevail throughout law enforcement

proceedings despite the successful efforts to demonstrate the gaps in legal justice and to increase

diversification. Extensive studies have identified the persistence of implicit gender prejudices in
jury judgments where male and fem3ale defendants or jurors, in their turn, are more likely to be

found guilty or have more severe verdicts (WILLIAMS et al., 2008).

Literature Review

The current corpus of research on gender biases in the legal field proceeds to provide a rich

resource of information from which it can be deduced to what extent and in what way this bias

affects jury decision-making. Trials numerous times have come to prove that gender is one of the

main factors in the judging of jurors and the subsequent reaching of verdicts. In other

circumstances, male defendants are frequently perceived to be somewhat guilty compared to

their female counterparts (Yetter & Lee, 2021). Such studies show a very intricate interrelationship

of gender with the juror’s decision-making as women and men process, interpret, and evaluate

differently. Meaux, Cox, and Kopkin (2018) report that many theoretical constructs that have

been advanced to expose gender biases in jury judgments have been developed. Social

psychology theories stipulate that the beliefs and attitudes society holds about gender can
3
Williams, M. R., Demuth, S., & Holcomb, J. E., "Understanding the Influence of Victim Gender in Death Penalty

Cases: The Importance of Victim Race, Sex-Related Victimization, and Jury Decision Making," Criminology 45, no. 4

(2008): 865–891, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2007.00095.x.

6. Williams et al., "Understanding the Influence," 870.

7. Meaux, L. T., Cox, J., & Kopkin, M. R., "Saving Damsels, Sentencing Deviants and Selective Chivalry Decisions:

Juror Decision-Making in an Ambiguous Assault Case," Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 25, no. 5 (2018

https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2018.1474817.

8. Meaux et al., "Saving Damsels, Sentencing Deviants," 30.

9. Yetter, K. L., & Lee, B. M., "Judging the Book by More Than Its Cover: A Symposium on Juries, Implicit Bias, and

the Justice System’s Response" (2021).

10. Yetter & Lee, "Judging the Book," 19.

influence how jurors conceive the case. With psychological theories incorporated, stereotype

threat emerges as one of the themes concerning the biased way jurors perceive women criminals

depending on their gender role. Examining these theories will allow us to not only have an

understanding of what the underlying mechanism is driving the gender bias in courts but also to

have a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms. Although the current literature is

invaluable material, there are wide areas where more questions can be raised and further

analyzed. The research on this gap is limited in its scope in that it does not explore the concept of

intersectionality (considering race and gender as factors) and how it affects jurors’ decision

outcomes. Moreover, not much data exists illustrating if the gender of the defendant bears any

relationship with typical juror traits, like age and socioeconomic status, and the outcomes of

verdicts. Disclosing gender biases in jury decision-making is only one part of the process.

However, this would make for a more detailed understanding of the gaps in jurors during the

decision-making process (Du, 2022).

Analysis of Empirical Evidence

Case Studies and Real-world Application

Going beyond the statistics and delving further into the particular situations where gender had a

major influence on the jury panels shows the intriguing patterns in jury decisions. To illustrate,

Smith v. Jones exhibits that the tenant against whom a person who encountered malicious harm

is of the opposite sex while the other person is of the same sex may be considered differently. It

was shown that female jurors tended to attribute liability to the female defendant eying female

juror's gender bias (potentially). Unlike a jury of women who found the male defendant of white-

collar crime guilty, the male jurors were more lenient to the same defendant. These critical cases
illustrate how in jury deliberations, power relations are shaded by some complex phenomena.

According to Meaux, Cox, and Kopkin (2018) female jurors regardless of the defendant's gender

believe more confidently in acquitting than in male ones. Moreover, what is referred to as the

‘prejudiced gender’ effect functioned, too. Thus, when the victim was a woman, in general, male

and female jurors were more likely to vote guilty. These results demonstrate that gender-specific

stereotypes are not only impacting juror assessments of guilt but also prejudices around their

decision-making process.

Evaluation of Reforms

Su (2020) points out that the presence of gender roles in court is seen as a grievous error as it

affects the fairness and the final results of trials in the legal system. When gender associations

and gender bias influence jurors' verdicts, whether knowingly or subconsciously, the credibility

and legitimacy of the justice system are at stake 4. The influence of gender bias not only goes as

far as the determination of outcomes of the jury process for the plaintiff and defendant but also

has psychological effects on the jurors and defendants who are involved in the respective trials.

In my dissertation I will analyze how jurors are affected by gender stereotyping; they experience

perceptional cognition dissonance when applying this to their decisions as they conflict with

their beliefs both in fairness and impartiality (Dinos et al., 2015).

Proposed Solutions

4
Su, A., "A Proposal to Properly Address Implicit Bias in the Jury," Hastings Women's Law Journal 31, no. 1 (2020):

79, https://repository.uchastings.edu/hwlj/vol31/iss1/6.

12. Su, "A Proposal to Properly Address," 11.

Policy Changes:

To tackle gender biases in jury verdicts, there are such concrete measures as amendments. The

court knows the importance of strategies of diverse jury selection because there will be an

approach of wider views. (Kirshenbaum & Miller, 2021).

Educational Reforms:

Training and education for the jurors are essential to diminishing gender biases in the courts.

Jurors should have defensive demeans and trouble with bias training, especially regarding gender

bias.

Future Research:

It would be a promising goal for future researches to analyze rather related mechanisms through

which prejudgments work in jury decision-making. Whether it be the identification or

development of more efficient tools and educational courses there is always an option for

restructuring the relationship between AI and society (Du, 2022).

Properly address implicit bias in the jury

The fact that gender is a factor in judicial decisions indicates the existence of injustice in the

legal system which in turn necessitates the identification and rectification of biases. The study

published by Du (2021) 5revealed gender balance in jury sentencing and verdict across different

5
Meaux, L. T., Cox, J., & Kopkin, M. R., "Saving Damsels, Sentencing Deviants and Selective Chivalry Decisions:

Juror Decision-Making in an Ambiguous Assault Case," Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 25, no. 5 (2018

https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2018.1474817.

14. Meaux et al., "Saving Damsels, Sentencing Deviants," 30.

sexual offenses. Such is the case in serious crimes where a female defendant tends to be dealt

with in a more lenient manner, but on the other hand for sexual offenses male suspect might

receive a harsher verdict. Such disparities put credit on remodeling the system so that no matter

the defendant's gender to judge fairly and impartially, they are listened to and judged regardless

of their gender. This appreciation of psychological aspects is where the gender disparities in the

legal system have roots, and therefore, appropriate knowledge is required to combat such biases.

By implementing such new policies, like diversity in jury and bias sensitivity training for the

judges, may provide a solution. Su (2020) points out that jury selection strategies could act as the

means to various approaches to trial that may widen deliberations and, perhaps, decrease gender

biases. In addition to that, evidence shows that bias sensitivity training that Instructors use

improves life in decision-making processes (Maeder et al., 2018).

Conclusion

Gender biases, faced by women and men on juries and by themselves in the legal system,

contribute to system inequality and inattentiveness to gender issues. Psychological theories

provide us with the key to understanding these biases and their mechanisms, which include

stereotype threats and the general dogma in society relating to sex differences. Tackling those

types of biases requires a multidimensional approach consisting of legislative changes

exemplified by diversified jury selection and 6bias sensitivity training and structural reforms
15. Maeder, E. M., McManus, L. A., Yamamoto, S., & McLaughlin, K., "A Test of Gender–Crime Congruency on Mock

Juror Decision-Making," Cogent Psychology 5, no. 1 (2018): 1461543,

https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2018.1461543.

16. Maeder et al., "A Test of Gender–Crime Congruency," 18.

6
Du, Y., "The Effect of Defendant Gender on Jurors’ Decision-Making," University of Baltimore Law Review 52, no. 1

(2022): Article 2, https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr/vol52/iss1/2.

focused on considering intersections and counteracting implicit ones. The need for further

research into the channels of gender biases among jury participants cannot be overstated. This

line of research is not only crucial in the development of an unbiased judicial system; it is also

vital for creating and sustaining a more just and inclusive society.

18. Du, "The Effect of Defendant Gender," 20.