Soc. 3251W Race, Class, and Gender

I think that we do put ourselves in certain categories to an extent. When we are with our friends act like they do and dress the way they do. We conform to people around us. By doing that we are putting ourselves into a category. But I also think we can create our own. Whether it's by hanging out with a different group of people, moving, going to college or maybe just becoming more open minded.

In response to what can be done to reduce juries' discriminations, I think the language used when presenting the case is essential. The articles we read earlier this semester really drove home the idea of how easily people are persuaded by the use of some common words. Just the phrasing of what a victim is called can either put the victim in a positive or a negative light. This is illustrated some by the example of the DDA calling the victim a "young lady" to help gain her some respect in the jurors' eyes. By creating discordant locales, descriptions are being used to classify somebody. These classifications lead to judgments. For me, Frohmann's article just reinforced how crucial the language we use can be. If cases are presented unbiased and in neutral language, a jury should hopefully be more willing to accept it as it is. I am not saying that juries will suddenly quit discriminating, but taking the necessary language precautions should help the problem some.

I think the biggest thing we that can do to eliminate jury discrimation is have short classes that outline what exactly the jury needs to look at, because I have reached this topic before and generally people selected for jury trials dont really know what laws apply to the issue they are deciding on, or they tend to have bias argements. As for the second question I think people are already viewed as a certain way, regardless if they fall into a certain "group" . So alot of the times I think that people are just placed by society's views not neccesarily their own.

response by jessica stiffarm

In response to question 2, I think people for the most part place themselves in previously defined categories for simplicity and acceptance reasons. Most people do not place themselves in a certain category until they have conversed with people in similar situations as them and found some sort of acceptance. Therefore, I think new categories are only created when enough people converse and identify with certain similar qualities, with which they can make a new category. Thus, I think people make new categories to define themeselves as they are found necessary.

In response to the first question, I believe that the jury shouldn’t know where the victim is from. This just gets in the way of the pure facts…(the real truth). I don’t know if this is exactly possible, but there should be some kind of way to hide the scene where these people are from because that should not effect the way they are treated in our judicial system. Since a jury is made up of everyday people, and I feel that most of our population has stenotypes or pre-conceived ideas about certain classes and races. It would almost make sense to have hearings over the internet where the color of a persons skin is not visible or the accent they speak with is not heard. Just the facts are presented. This may be an idea we will see in the future. The second question entails if we put ourselves into certain categories. I don’t think that this entirely true, but it does indeed have truth behind it. I believe that society makes up these groups, and everyone falls into one of them. From here, I think that people either except the group they fall into, or they are displeased with the group they are lumped into and change their lifestyle so that they are placed into another group society has made, in which they feel more comfortable.

In regards to the first question, it seems as if the only way to reduce a jury's discrimination towards race and class is to place them into those situations, and thus cause them to become unbiased. I think that it is important for the jury to completely comphrehend the victim's life situation and background, because both of these elements affect the victim's actions, and more significanly, the victim's "victimization," if you will. However, I am not sure whether a method exists to execute this process, but I believe that the most a jury can do is attempt to be sympathetic and unbiased towards the race and class of the victim.

For the second question, I think both forces pull at each other to create a type of tug of war. People place themselves in certain categories through their actions, yet those actions have already served to define specific categories. Conversely, specific categories are developed to provide a foundation for a person's actions. However, that person only fits into that category based on his or her actions, which brings one back to the idea that one can categorize him or herself based on his or her actions.

I do not think that there is much we can do to reduce jury's discrimination of race, class and gender. If there is anything we could do, I would think we should start by having split juries. We could have a proportionate amount of race, class, and/or gender, but actually applying that would be a little bit tougher even though I think that might allow for some differences to be seen. I also agree with Jessica S. I know that juries are not fully told about laws and information about how they should go about in deciding innocence or guilt. More education on the matter would help to eliminate some discriminatory practices.