Judging Bias: Juror Confidence and Judicial Rulings on Challenges for Cause

The judge in a jury trial is charged with excusing prospective jurors who will not be impartial. To assess impartiality, prospective jurors are typically asked whether they can be fair. Using an experimental paradigm, we found that small changes in jurors' self‐reported confidence in their ability to be fair affected judges' decisions about bias but did not affect the judgments of either attorneys or jurors. We suggest why a judge's role and unique relationship with jurors is likely to foster a decision strategy based on reported juror confidence, and we discuss the implications of our analysis for current legal debates over jury selection practices. Unexpected patterns in our results also highlight the ways in which perceptions of impartiality are affected, in part, by the social characteristics of the observer.     

Community Correction Officer Perceptions Of Ex-Offender Reentry Needs And Challenges

Research into community corrections officers’ perceptions of the needs of ex-offenders has largely been overlooked. While some empirical research has emerged regarding federal parole officers’ perceptions, it is conceptually incomplete. A gap in the literature remains regarding the concordance or discordance between offenders and community corrections officers’ perceptions of offender needs and the opportunities for success upon release. Using a sample of community corrections officers in Seattle, Washington, this research examined officer perception of ex-offender needs, the value officers’ placed on the specific needs, and the opportunities available for offenders to meet their needs. Differences between officers emerged including the finding that female officers rated needs and challenges for offenders significantly different than male officers. Policy implications of the research are discussed. This research was made possible due to a grant award from the College of Arts and Sciences at Seattle University. This research was first presented at the 2005 Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences Conference in Chicago. We are grateful to Mac Pevey and Keven Bovenkamp from the Washington State Department of Corrections and Bill Corn and Tim McTighe from United States Probation and Pretrial Services for their support, assistance, and for making the study possible. A special thanks to our research assistant Tania Reyes who was instrumental in collecting the data for this investigation.     

Thinking Critically about Race and Genetics

We must critically rethink race and genetics in the context of the new genetic breakthroughs and haplotype mapping. We must avoid the slippery slope of turning socially constructed racial categories into genetic realities. It is a potentially dangerous arena given the history of racialized science in the United States and globally. Indeed, the new advances must be viewed in the context of a long history of racial inequality, continuing into the current period. This is more than a question of how carefully we use categories of analysis such as race. Justice and equity must be core to our considerations. There is a community stake in this work that must be seriously considered and included in decision making. A progressive and critical analysis is in order.