Why Televised Juries Acquit

By Douglas Bishop Society has abandoned all semblance of forethought in exchange for the satisfaction gained by immediacy. Nowhere is this more prevalent than in the American courtroom. Jurors often find themselves experiencing a seismic shift between what they think a prosecutor should be capable of accomplishing and the limitations of modern technology because of the preconceived notions they hold from crime dramas. They expect prosecutors with holographic light boards and flashy multimedia presentations on touch-screen televisions detailing every aspect of a crime -- accoutrements often unavailable or simply unrealistic for real-life prosecutors competing with their studio-imagined placeboes. A healthy dose of skepticism, in any form, is only good for the American justice system because it prevents innocent people from being convicted of crimes they didn't commit. Even if it's generated by the inaccuracies of televised crime dramas, the result is still beneficial. But when the case in question is televised, the natural human interest in steering events in directions that benefit and profit the participants may result in a miscarriage of justice. This force is responsible for the, "What were they thinking?" moments that some attribute to the naivet of the American public or a floundering education system. I see it differently. When a jury in a high-profile case returns a verdict of "not guilty", it becomes a mob whose collective verdict is based on more than a genuine belief in the innocence or guilt of the accused.

The Psychology of Experience

The very idea that juries can completely divorce themselves from the world around them is ludicrous. We live in a world together and part of that reality is the fact that all humans look out for themselves. They examine and judge the world around them at all times and attempt to filter the results through their own personal experience. It is the psychology of experience. Now the results of this process differ from individual to individual because motivation, intelligence and naivet are all subjective. But the internal drive to grab hold of the events and steer them in a direction that benefits us is universal. The perceived inability to control the events of our own lives evokes strong emotions of helplessness and anger. By contrast, the

perceived ability to manipulate these events makes us feel confident and secure. At all times, we strive to feel confident and powerful and fear times of helplessness and anger. A "mob mentality" is simply a group of like-minded citizens attempting to work together to drive these forces in the direction that they desire. That's why once accomplished, the group will fragment -- the shared interest evaporates. Mobs that fragment before accomplishing their goal is realized do so because the members individually adopt more pertinent goals that supersede or contradict the goals of the mob. In the structure of a jury, the mob's interest always begins the same: everyone feels inconvenienced and they want the trial to end as fast as possible. The judge alters the direction of the mob by introducing the idea of exacting justice for either the wronged parties or the wrongfully accused defendant. Both of these motivations encourage jurors to see the trial through and in the case of a simple non-televised trial, they do so and return to their regular lives feeling gratified, dissatisfied, or simply inconvenienced. Now a television camera is introduced into the courtroom. What changes? Evidence is evidence and it's the evidence that lays the blueprint for what gets entered when, who gets questioned, etc. So neither the evidence nor the procedures are affected. However, the actions of the players (the judge, prosecutors, and defense attorneys) are usually affected dramatically. Some become overly cautious, so as not to embarrass themselves on television. Some become overly bold or cocky. Some become obsessed with details or overly loquacious. Regardless of the individual changes, the result of seeing the primary players alter their actions introduces to the jurors the idea that we should all be acting different. One by one, subconsciously and without collusion, the jurors begin to think about the ramifications of both a guilty verdict and a not guilty verdict -- not in terms of how it will affect the players, the wronged parties, or the defendant, but rather in terms of their own lives beyond the confines of the courtroom. It is impossible not to and indeed is the courtroom version of attempting to shift life events in a beneficial direction. Though never acting together like a traditional mob, they deliberate in a way that achieves a mutually beneficial end.

Benefits and Pitfalls of a Not-Guilty Verdict

For the juror, the defendant is guilty, innocent, or the prosecution fails its burden. Whether the notion is preconceived at the start of the trial (some jurors will decide to return a verdict of innocent or guilty for personal reasons totally independent of the trial) or not does not affect the resulting emotional rewards.
If the juror resolves that the defendant is innocent, a juror will benefit from a not guilty

verdict by achieving a personal sense of honor and justice.

If the prosecution fails its burden, the juror feels gratified that though the defendant

may have been guilty, the prosecution dropped the ball. This is an acceptable outcome; it's better to err on the side of caution than convict an innocent person.
If the defendant is guilty, a juror will feel a breech of justice.

Benefits and Pitfalls of a Guilty Verdict

Based on the same juror opinions, except the failure falls on the part of the defense attorneys. Because the guilty verdict adds an additional burden from the knowledge that the juror's actions have affected the life of another, the emotions are more poignant.
Jurors who believe the defendant is innocent will feel guilty about allowing themselves

to be bullied into voting disingenuously in addition to the miscarriage of justice.

The failure of the defense attorney's is met with either a sense of poetic justice for a

despised defendant (and the idea of a miscarriage abates) or a miscarriage of justice for a sympathetic defendant.
If the defendant is guilty, a sense of justice and duty possibly mixed with a sense of

regret because the juror's actions have directly affected another person's life.

Benefits and Pitfalls of a Televised Not-Guilty Verdict

Now we add a camera.
If the public resolves that the defendant is innocent, the juror will be hailed as a

clairvoyant hero who saw through the prosecutor's lies. They will be interviewed.

 If the public resolves that the prosecution failed, the juror will agree with the public

and will be seen as a comrade. They will be interviewed.

If the public resolves that the defendant is guilty, the juror will be beseeched as people

try to comprehend the wrong verdict. They will be interviewed many times.

Benefits and Pitfalls of a Televised Guilty Verdict

A guilty verdict in a televised trial puts the camera squarely on the face of the convicted and the crying faces of families or the parties that were wronged. No matter what the situation, the jurors will get very little attention -- if any.
If the public believes the defendant innocent, it will hate the jurors for being conned by

prosecutors and focus on the wrongfully convicted criminal. Focus shifts away from the juror and onto appeals, the horrors of incarceration, and a rehashing of the evidence.
The failure of the defense attorney is met with public outcry or a sense of poetic

justice. The story will be all about the defense attorney, the prosecutors, and the playby-play of the trial. The debate over technique precludes the juror, who is ignored.
A publicly convicted defendant is the center point of any guilty verdict. Focus is all

about crying victims and sentencing. The juror, like any cog in a perfectly working machine, is ignored.

Hung Juries
In either case, televised or not, a hung jury is inconsequential as the focus immediately shifts to the prosecution's inability to get the job done and possible retrials or civil action. The juror is always ignored. Even in cases where the defendant is eventually found guilty of a heinous crime or is wrongfully convicted and then later exonerated, documentarians and reporters dig up the jurors that handed down the conviction... not the jurors from the original hung jury.

The Results
In a non-televised trial, public outcry is limited and muted against the noise of everyday life. Jurors simply return to their lives to live with the emotional benefits or pitfalls of their verdicts. But in the case of televised juries, there is a distinct and clear additional benefit to returning a not-guilty verdict: a juror will become part of the story and achieve a certain level of fame. This

is hugely attractive to any person. We call it "15 minutes of fame", but really it's an opportunity to take firm control of many of the aspects of our lives and move them all in a direction we would like to go. From this fame can come book deals, television appearances, recognition on the street by strangers, and a whole host of other perks that will never be available to most jurors if they say the word "guilty". The presence of a camera in the courtroom is absolutely a motivating factor that drives normally impartial jurors to use the outcome of their trial to sway the path of their own lives in a new and beneficial direction. But the question we have to ask ourselves is, "do we really care?"

Do We Really Care?
No. We don't care about miscarriages of justice. Instead, we long to see miscarriages of justice because they entertain us. If we as viewers opine that a criminal is guilty and he's convicted, there is a particular satisfaction in that. However, if he gets off, we get to be outraged and run our mouths about it for weeks or even months. We get to find pundits on television who are just as outraged as we are or stand in judgment of pundits who dare to disagree with us. This is even more entertaining and seductively engaging as we experience even more powerful and suspenseful emotions. To get actual justice, we would have to remove cameras from the courtroom, but our own obsession with this habituating game of cat and mouse prevents us from doing this. We will continue to see juries rendering verdicts skewed from reality because that is exactly what we want them to show us.