Presumption of Innocence--Self Analysis

When I began researching and blogging on the topic of presumption of innocence, I assumed that, though it was often disregarded, most would take the position of innocent until proven guilty (beyond a reasonable doubt). Although this position seems like it would not be difficult to take, it is very difficult to ensure that jurors or judges even presume innocence. To begin with, there is no way to test the jurors before they begin jury duty for inherent biases. Yes, many biases will come out during the interviews etc. of voir dire: the process through which attorneys decide if the jurors will judge fairly. However, many biases relevant to the case at hand will go unnoticed. Regardless of the steps taken to prevent jury bias, people within the jury will hold biases; all people are subject to profiling, holding preconceived notions and judging on a personal level. In the experiment of Tajfel, it is shown that people will, if given the chance to reward someone within their own group or another group, however meaningless the reason for grouping is, they will reward those in their own group. This can be interpreted to show that those who people identify with are more likely to be rewarded or favored by them in the case of courts. This is one of the many inherent ways in which members of a jury will be biased. There are many works dedicated to using juror bias to one’s advantage, even citing ideas which date back to Aristotle. Circumventing jury bias should not be expected in the courtroom, I have come to realize.

I have also come to realize that there aren’t any final solutions to the problem of jury bias and the presumption of guilt. The best measure which can be taken, in my opinion, is setting up officials to oversee and judge the jury on the way they make their decisions. However, with these steps, only the blatantly obvious biases will be exposed, such as the jurors judging the West Memphis Three. where there is no way guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and other biases will find their ways into the courtroom.

In reality, jury bias exists, regardless of court rules. This is part of the contract jurors have to sign in West Virginia:

The law permits nothing but legal evidence presented before the jury to be considered in support of any charge against the accused. So the presumption of innocence alone is sufficient to acquit a Defendant, unless the jurors are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the Defendant's guilt after careful and impartial consideration of all of the evidence in the case.

Yet, grossly unfair cases, such as that of Earl Washington, have taken place. Within our great country, greater measures, such as the regular establishment of a jury to judge the jury, are necessary if we are to adhere to the court regulations in place; otherwise, biased juries will continue to botch cases.