Bias can be seen in individuals, groups, on the news and in our families. Most of the jurors make their initial decision based on some sort of bias. Here is the strict definition of bias:A cognitive bias is the human tendency to make systematic errors in certain circumstances based on cognitive factors rather than evidence. Such biases can result from information-processing shortcuts called heuristics. They include errors in judgment, social attribution, and memory. Cognitive biases are a common outcome of human thought, and often drastically skew the reliability of anecdotal and legal evidence. It is a phenomenon studied in cognitive science and social psychology.
I took this from Wikipedia on purpose- first it is accurate, and second, you can use the links to try and figure out exactly what it means. Use this definition and post a comment on what you think one of the jurors bias is, what it comes from and whether he actually over comes it or is simply peer pressured into changing his vote.
Everyone needs to post at least once to get graded.
41 comments:
Juror 3 was definitely biased because he had the impression that all people from slums are bad. Due to this, he automatically assumed that the boy, who lived in a slum, killed his own father.
I think that juror number 2 is bias because he has no reason in the beginning for why the kid is guilty. His mind was easily changed because he thought about i more. However he originally chose guilty because that is what everyone else thought. He had an error in judgment because he based his opinion off of the other's opinions.
juror three was a bias because he thought the enviroment he lived in mad the kid bad.This making him believe that the kid was guilty of murder.
Juror three was obviously biased when he repeatedly mentioned how a reform school kid from the "slums" was without doubt going to be guilty. He was stubborn and refused to listen to reason, using only his "bad kid from the ghettos" argument to support his misled, stereotypical belief.
I also think that there are arguments for both breaking under peer pressure and for actual belief. Juror three is incredibly stubborn, and is happy ad comfortable when someone else is arguing for him on his side, but when he has to argue alone, he can not bring up a valid argument, yet still believes in his opinion. He continues to believe in the kid's guilt, so must think that some part of his argument is valid - the stereotype about a slum kid being a killer. As a result, one can deduce he really does believe in the reasoning and stereotype, and because of that is angry when he is pressured by everyone else to vote not guilty. One could also say that he did believe in evidence, since he turned his back, like the other jurors, to juror ten's stereotypical, mimicking speech. However, he was stubborn the entire time, and continued to argue. When no one else was with him, he gave up. However, he might of given up because he realized why the others agreed to "reasonable doubt", so his anger sprang from frustration in being wrong, but most evidence goes the other way, towards peer pressure. Also, a random question - why weren't any of the jurors women? Was this made or set in a time when American courts banned women jurors? Nowadays, all juries are essentially required to have a woman on it so the court can claim it to be a valid jury with no gender, racial, etc. leanings or stereotypes.
I think that juror three was bias. Right off the bat he assumed that the little boy was guilty because he lived in a slum. He assumed that people who lived in slums were terrible people, and didn't quite know the right things to do.
I think that juror number three was bias because throughout the play he talked about how the kid live in the slums and that meant he was bad and killed his father. This is bias because not all people in the slums are bad and he is just assuming this. I think that he does not really overcome this because he never defiantly takes this back and apologizes to juror number eleven who actually lives in the slums.
I agree with Nathan and Kat. Juror number three was bias because he assumed that since the kid was from the slums, it made hime bad. Also, he wouldn't take any evidence that proved the kid not guilty because he THOUGHT the kid was guilty and because his evidence was "good enough."
In a way, Juror number five was a bit bias because, after he decides the boy is not guilty, he takes the case personally. Because juror numkber five grew up in the slums and he didn't go around killing people, he assumed that the kid didn't just go around killing people. This makes him a bit bias because he can relate to the kid.
I think Evan writes too much
This basically means that people are stereo-typical. Saying "human tendency to make systematic errors". People thinking things just because it may seem it, or people may have heard it. Juror 3 was a great example of a bias person. He didnt like the kid because he was a Slum. But i think that he has this hatred towards slums for a reason. He seemed verys self concious when they talked about how he knew how to cut with the knife properly. He s very bias to that type of person though. I agree with the many people above. Mostly this means stereo-typical to me...
I think juror ten had a an extreme bias. He thought that "those people" meaning people living in slums, are very violent, and would constantly get drunk and kill one another, and that they valued life less than more fortunate people did. He only based that off of his obviously small kowledge of "those people".
Juror number ten was biased. He was prejudice and thought that all people who lived in bad neighborhoods were raised and brought up badly. He thought they were rude and law breakers. Also juror number three was against slum kids and thought they were violent and bad.
Really, anonymous?
I think that juror number 3 was bias in the story because he said that all kids in the slums are bad and hurtful. Because the boy is from the slums juror three decides that he must have done it. I also think that juror five is bias because when the slums were mentioned he took it offensive and snapped at juror three because he was born in the slums and turned out to be a good person. He wasnted to prove that not all people from the slums or not are guilty.
I think that juror number 3 was bias in the story because he said that all kids in the slums are bad and hurtful. Because the boy is from the slums juror three decides that he must have done it. I also think that juror five is bias because when the slums were mentioned he took it offensive and snapped at juror three because he was born in the slums and turned out to be a good person. He wasnted to prove that not all people from the slums or not are guilty.
i think that number 8 is bias because he said that old people are slow. i think number 5 was bias because he said that anyone who buys a switch knife is experienced with it.
i think that juror 3 was biased because he right away assumed that the defendant was guilt because of his background.
I agree with most of them that juror number three is the most bias out of all the jurors. He only thinks that the kid is guilty is because this kid is from a tough area and has a bad background. He is saying that all of the people like that are murderers and they are the first one the blame when something bad happens around them. That is the reason that he stayed with his guilty vote for such a long time. This also means that if he wasn't bias he probably would have made the time sitting in that room a lot quicker and their tempers would have been under control.
Many people said that juror number three was bias. I agree. The nineteen year old boy was from the slums so the juror automatically thought that he was guilty. Like Taylor said, the juror thought all people from the slums are terrible. That is not true they just have a hard life and they have to go through it a little differently then others. Because of this juror three proved the boy guilty without assuming otherwise.
Like most people, I think Juror 3 was biased. He was judging and he stereotyped. He thought that just because the boy did not have a great background, because he lived in the slums, he was atomatically the murderer. Juror 3 would not agree that the boy was not guilty, until the end. He kept on saying that there was not enough evidence to show that the boy was innocent and he also thought that he had enough evidence to prove he was guilty.
I think that Juror 2 was the most bias as he had nothing to back up his decision. He also said that nobody proved he was not guilty when the system works the other way around. Another thing that shows he's biased is that he refuses to give a reason for his decision.
I think that juror number three was biased, because he made assumtions because of where the kid lived. He also steryotyped that "these people" were bad because they lived in slums. He would not agree not guilty, yet his reasons showing guilt were limited. He did not have many reasons to guilt, but just yellled at the other jurors.
I think juror ten and juror there were biased because they both just assumed the boy was guilty in th begining. Juror ten agrugued that since the boy was from the slums he was definetly the murderer as well as juror three. Bias in courtrooms in America destroys inoccent lives.
I agree that Juror 3 was biased.He went into the trial believing that once someone commits a crime they will do it again if given the opportunity. This bias made him think the boy was guilty but at the end he was peer pressured into changing his vote to not guilty.
I thought juror three was the most bias because of the fact that his opinions and votes were solely based on the kid living in the "slums." He thought that just because he lived there he was a criminal which may or may not have been the case. In the end I think he was finally peer pressured into saying that he was not guilty.
Juror three has a bias against people living in the slums. He believes that slums are overrun with crime and criminals. He is correct that there are criminals in a slum but fails to recognize that most people are not. He also has a bias against "tough kids" because his son punched him in the face. He has not seen his son in three years. I believe that he is still hurt by this and because he can't punish his son or admit it was his fault, he needs someone to blame so he wants to punish the defendant. This prevents him from making a decision completely based on the facts.
I think juror three was bias because he immediantly thought that the boy was guilty because of his backround by living in the slums and that he went to reform school. Juror three didnt take the evidence into consideration befor casting his vote he only thought of the boys past and not the facts.
I think juror number three was bias because he thought the boy was guilty, and he continuously pointed out that he lived in the slums and was bad. I think he c=got the impression of slums being bad because a lot of people from slums can turn out bad, but not all can and he didnt realize that. I think in the end he was more pressured into changing his vote than his bias was changed.
Juror three had the most visible bias. The kid had a childhood full of beating and past experiences in handling knifes. Juror three was blinded by the testimonies and decided that the kid was guilty before examining the true facts of the case. In the end, the other jurors finally convinced him that he could not win. Because he normally ‘got what he wanted’ he was very upset by the situation. Finally, in the end of the play, he voted “Not Guilty”.
i think juror number 10 was one of the most biased members of the jury. He was very stereotypical about how impoverished, destitute people are very dangerous and go around killing people for no apparent reason. Eventually, the jurors (especially number four), had enough of him and voted not guilty. I believe that he could have grown up in a wealthy family and had a lifelong stereotype of people of less importance than him.
-Grant F.
I agree with all of the people who said that juror number 3 was biased. He stereotyped people who lived in slums saying that they are all bad and "potential menaces to society." He automatically thought that the kid was guilty since he lived in the slums. He is used to getting what he wants and always being right so he got upset easily when others, especially juror number 8, were trying to prove him wrong. In the end he was pressured by all of the others to vote not guilty but his bias wasn't changed.
I think that juror number three was bias because he automatically thought that this kid was gulty because he lived in the slums abd was raised very poorly. Juror number 3 was even standing alone at the end for "guily" and wouldnt change his mind at first.
I think that juror number three is bias because at first he assumed the boy was guilty due to his background information. It was basically an error because he inferred that since he was from the slum that he was a bad kid and he tried to find ways to prove that he was guilty but in the end, having being overpowered with arguments against him, juror three changed his mind.
I think juror 10 was bias. He was being very bias towards people in the slum, and he also made a speech about how "you can't trust them", twice. I think juror 3 was a little bias, but not as much as 10. It seemed like he was bias because he was very angry at the other jurors all the time.
ALL COMMENTS AFTER THIS POINT WILL NOT COUNT.
Juror 3 was biased becaus of how he thought all children from slums were bad, and criminals. He also thought that all children around age 18 were bad, because at that age his son slapped him and ran away
I think that juror number 3 was bias. I think he was bias because immediately he basically sayed, he lives in a slum, he must have murdered his father. Also because he thinks that growing up in a slum, someone will definitely be a "bad" person.
I think that juror number 3 was bias. I think he was bias because immediately he basically sayed, he lives in a slum, he must have murdered his father. Also because he thinks that growing up in a slum, someone will definitely be a "bad" person.
NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICE MITCH
Why are you guys even trying? It does not count
Post a Comment