Opinion ID: 1407576
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: The Harris 1971 Survey

Text: In addition to measuring conviction proneness by obtaining votes in four specified cases, the Harris 1971 study also asked its subject/jurors to respond to a large number of questions or statements about crime and the criminal justice system. The responses of the automatic life imprisonment subjects were then compared to the remaining (i.e., Witherspoon -qualified) subjects. A majority of both groups of subjects agreed that in most cases the jury should ignore a defense of insanity because it is a loophole that allows too many guilty people to go free. However, as in Goldberg, Wilson, and Bronson-Colorado, more of the Witherspoon -qualified subjects agreed than did the automatic life imprisonment subjects (67 percent to 57 percent). This difference was highly significant, with a p value of less than .01. Similarly, while a majority of both groups believed there was less law and order in this country compared with five years earlier, the Witherspoon -qualified subjects were more likely to hold that belief (74 percent to 61 percent). They were also more likely to view blacks (39 percent to 30 percent) and the courts (34 percent to 19 percent) as major cause[s] of the breakdown in law and order in this country. [85] Again, these results were all significant at the .01 level. The two groups differed little in their evaluations of judges in criminal cases, [86] but there were consistent and statistically significant differences in their respective attitudes towards the lawyers. Prosecutors tended to fare better in the eyes of both groups than did defense counsel. However, the automatic life imprisonment group saw the gap as considerably smaller than did the Witherspoon -qualified group. [87] Finally, the subjects were asked about the attitudes concerning nine trial occurrences. These inquiries were prefaced with the following instructions: Suppose you were a juror in a criminal case, and the judge told you that the prosecution must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, otherwise the jury should find the defendant innocent. If the case involved each of the situations I am going to read to you how difficult would it be for you to vote `not guilty?' Examples of the situations to which responses were elicited are: If the defendant does not take the witness stand in his own defense; If an aide to the judge claimed he knew the defendant had committed the crime although the judge said the jury should ignore such statements; and If a policeman testified that he saw the defendant commit the crime. [88] The subjects were then asked to indicate whether they would certainly find [defendant] innocent, probably find [defendant] innocent, not find [defendant] innocent or were not sure. In each of the nine situations presented to the subjects, the Witherspoon -qualified group was more likely to give a not innocent-response than was the automatic life imprisonment group. Conversely, in seven of the nine situations, the automatic life imprisonment subjects were more likely to give innocent-responses. [89] If the percentage of innocent responses is subtracted from the percentage of not innocent responses in order to calculate a net pro-guilty response, it is found that the Witherspoon -qualified subjects had higher net pro-guilty responses on eight of the nine situations. In all eight, the p values were .05 or lower. [90]