Stereotypes And Bias Affecting Jurors Perception

Abstract

Introduction

Television has a significant role in the way the general public perceives certain things, however, what is portrayed on the screen is not always true. It is imperative that one discerns the difference between fiction and reality. In recent years, crime-centric television shows have become more popular and raised concern when it comes to digital evidence in courtrooms and jurors perception. Jurors are a main concern as they receive little training and are expected to render a verdict on complex case evidence and technical legal information (Huff). Technology is a forever growing field, therefore understanding how television influences jurors’ perception and decision making is critical. This case study aims to identify

Jurors are usually everyday civillains and lack the technical expertise to fully grasp the complexity of digital evidence which can cause misunderstanding and sway the decision of a trial. This problem is heightened by the perception television places on jurors as they often oversimplify the effort that goes into digital forensics. Jurors may have the connotation that results are instant and that sophisticated techniques shown in shows are readily available for all departments, leading to unrealistic expectations for real world criminal proceedings. The media often portrays digital experts as genuises who work best alone and can solve a case independently. In reality, digital forensics investigations involve a collaborative effort to develop a wide set of diverse skills. Digital forensics consists of a wide range of specialisms, therefore there is no such thing as an all-purpose “digital forensics expert” (Henseler et al - GoodNotes). This is important for jurors to know as having more than one expert witness for digital forensics can cause them to doubt the reliability of evidence. Dramatization of television shows includes emotionally charged storylines which can cloud jurors' judgment to assess digital evidence in both fiction and real world scenarios. Conveying these challenges requires

One way to ensure this is to provide everyone on the jury with educational material on the inaccuracies crime-related television portrays. Giving knowledge on the complexities of digital forensics can allow jurors to better discern between fiction and reality when it comes to evidence, leading to informed judgements. A proactive policing regime suggests that by implementing pre-trial information with the emphasis on objective deliberation, the charge of counteracting the influence of crime shows (National Academies of Sciences et al.). Offering post-trial feedback can allow for professionals to gauge jurors understanding of digital evidence and can offer critical insight for the further refining of strategies to help mitigate the impact of crime television on jurors. As the line between entertainment and reality blurs, it is essential for television producers to work with digital forensics experts to ensure accuracy and integrity in their portrayals, respecting the ethical boundaries of the field. Douglas Ruben - "The 'Douglas