Premium
Sources of Bias and Arbitrariness in the Capital Trial
Author(s) -
Luginbuhl James,
Burkhead Michael
Publication year - 1994
Publication title -
journal of social issues
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.618
H-Index - 122
eISSN - 1540-4560
pISSN - 0022-4537
DOI - 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb02412.x
Subject(s) - arbitrariness , verdict , jury , capital (architecture) , jury selection , principle of legality , law and economics , economics , positive economics , law , political science , epistemology , philosophy , archaeology , history
We consider whether capriciousness and/or bias play an undue role in capital trials. The potential for inequity is explored with regard to the selection of the jury, the verdict, and the determination of the penalty. It is concluded that while more data are necessary regarding most aspects of the capital trial, there is reason to believe inequities exist in the form both of caprice and of bias. Rectifying some of these inequities may be accomplished with relative ease, while reducing or eliminating others is more troublesome. As long as the death penalty remains in effect, whatever one's views on its legality or morality, we should strive to eliminate arbitrariness and bias in its application.