A Field Study of the Presumptively Biased: Is There Empirical Support for Excluding Convicted Felons from Jury Service?

Binnall, James M.

doi:10.1111/lapo.12015

Cited by 14 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 96 publications

(173 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Evidence further suggests that for many, the ideal juror role shapes how they view themselves. These findings support prior research suggesting that the rationales for felon jury exclusion lack empirical support (Binnall ) and proposing that a former offender's identity may be shaped by democratic participation and a commitment to conventional citizen roles (Uggen, Manza, and Behrens ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Conversely, in line with studies on citizens’ biases generally (Vidmar ), many participants exhibited a case‐specific, proprosecution bias in matters involving children and sexual crimes. This evidence seems to support prior empirical research calling into question the veracity of the rationales for felon jury exclusion (Binnall ) and it contradicts popular suppositions about convicted felons’ fitness for jury service.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 46%

“…In his seminal study of felon jury exclusion, law professor Brian Kalt (2003) argued that the practice undermines the representativeness of jury pools and that the proffered justifications for exclusion were both under- and overinclusive, doing little to protect the jury while creating a class of civic outsiders that pose little or no threat to the jury process. While a number of subsequent studies expanded on Kalt's theoretical arguments (Binnall 2008, 2009, 2010; Segal 2010), only two employ empirical methods (Wheelock 2011; Binnall 2014). Again, focused on the impacts of exclusion and the justifications for the practice, those studies suggest that felon jury exclusion racially homogenizes juries (Wheelock 2011) and is based on the flawed rationale that convicted felons harbor a unique prodefense/antiprosecution bias (Binnall 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While a number of subsequent studies expanded on Kalt's theoretical arguments (Binnall 2008, 2009, 2010; Segal 2010), only two employ empirical methods (Wheelock 2011; Binnall 2014). Again, focused on the impacts of exclusion and the justifications for the practice, those studies suggest that felon jury exclusion racially homogenizes juries (Wheelock 2011) and is based on the flawed rationale that convicted felons harbor a unique prodefense/antiprosecution bias (Binnall 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Summonsing Criminal Desistance: Convicted Felons' Perspectives on Jury Service

Binnall¹

2018

Law soc. inq.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This exploratory study is the first to examine how convicted felons view the jury process and their role in that process. Data derived from interviews with former and prospective felon‐jurors in Maine, the only US jurisdiction that does not restrict a convicted felon's opportunity to serve as a juror, reveal that participants displayed an idealized view of jury service, stressing a commitment to serve conscientiously. Additionally, inclusion in the jury process affirmed their transitions from “offenders” to “nonoffenders.” In response, participants exhibited a sense of particularized self‐worth, emphasizing that negative experiences with the criminal justice system make one a more effective juror. In sum, this study suggests that among convicted felons, inclusion in the jury process may prompt conformity with the “ideal juror” role, facilitate prosocial identity shifts by mitigating the “felon” label, and help former offenders to find personal value.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 46%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Summonsing Criminal Desistance: Convicted Felons' Perspectives on Jury Service

Binnall¹

2018

Law soc. inq.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…319 The trial court prosecution pretrial biases among those convicted of felonies roughly match those of law students. 333 And recent qualitative research into this group's experience serving on criminal juries in Maine has found that those convicted of felonies typically "seek to conform to what they perceive as the state's expectations of an exemplary juror, and ultimately incorporate the characteristics of the juror role into their own self-concepts." 334 For many of the study's subjects, the experience was validating and transformative, a "recognition of their reformation."…”

Section: Legitimacymentioning

confidence: 99%

For Cause: Rethinking Racial Exclusion and the American Jury

Frampton¹

2020

MLR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peremptory strikes, and criticism of the permissive constitutional framework regulating them, have dominated the scholarship on race and the jury for the past several decades. But we have overlooked another important way in which the American jury reflects and reproduces racial hierarchies: massive racial disparities also pervade the use of challenges for cause. This Article examines challenges for cause and race in nearly 400 trials and, based on original archival research, presents a revisionist account of the Supreme Court’s three most recent Batson cases. It establishes that challenges for cause, no less than peremptory strikes, are an important—and unrecognized—vehicle of racial exclusion in criminal adjudication. Challenges for cause are racially skewed, in part, because the Supreme Court has insulated the challenge-for-cause process from meaningful review. Scholars frequently write that jury selection was “constitutionalized” in the 1970s and 1980s, but this doctrinal account is incomplete. In the interstices of the Court’s fair-cross-section, equal protection, and due process jurisprudence, there is a “missing” law of challenges for cause. By overlooking challenges for cause, scholars have failed to notice the important ways in which jury selection remains free from constitutional regulation. Challenges for cause as they exist today—effectively standardless, insulated from meaningful review, and racially skewed—do more harm than good. They hinder, more than help, the jury in its central roles: (1) protecting the individual against governmental overreach; (2) allowing the community a democratic voice in articulating public values; (3) finding facts; (4) bolstering the perceived legitimacy and fairness of criminal verdicts; and (5) educating jurors as citizens. We need to rethink who is qualified to serve as a juror and how we select them.

show abstract

They’re just different: the bifurcation of public attitudes toward felon-jurors convicted of violent offenses

Binnall

Petersen

2020

Crime Law Soc Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Field Study of the Presumptively Biased: Is There Empirical Support for Excluding Convicted Felons from Jury Service?

Cited by 14 publications

References 96 publications

Summonsing Criminal Desistance: Convicted Felons' Perspectives on Jury Service

Summonsing Criminal Desistance: Convicted Felons' Perspectives on Jury Service

For Cause: Rethinking Racial Exclusion and the American Jury

They’re just different: the bifurcation of public attitudes toward felon-jurors convicted of violent offenses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About