I think its possible for the judge to be unbiased, but the jury will be bias especially if they can relate to the victim or the prosecuted. If the jury related to the victim they are more entitled to siding with them over the prosecuted. Many people go into the jury and already accuse the prosecuted as guilty because that is a human nature thing, They just want someone to blame for something that happens, its a lot harder to change someone's mind than it is to convince them they are right. So yes the jury can be bias, some may not be, but the jury will never be completely unbiased.
I agree you will never have a full jury that is unbiased. If the jury was completely unbiased the case might run a little smoother, because everybody will be taking in what has been said.
I agree with your thoughts exactly, people all have strong feelings towards whatever the prosecuted has done whether it be rape, murder, etc. These views sways the juries mind from if the prosecuted did it or not, because they were brought in court for that offence. Very few people have the mindset to give everyone a clean slate.
I disagree with this statement because, I believe a judge is the same as the jury they can both be completely bias, the only difference between the jury and the judge though is that the Judge has to push past his feelings so he is able to do his job properly, while the jury does not necessarily put that much effort into putting their feelings aside. Because it is shown clearly throughout Perry and Dick's trials that the judge is biased and wants to see these two men hanged. But we also see Judge Tate follow everything by textbook showing that he cares more to follow the rules than through his own emotions.
The jury is just random citizens come to sit and watch a trial to help people figure out if someone is being blamed properly. The people who are on the jury could be biased, because they might relate to the victim and they want the defendant to be punished no matter if it is the right person or not. Not all of the jury will connect with the victim, and so some do come in and already have their mind set on the verdict no matter what is said in court. The judge has been working cases for a long time so after a while they figure people out.
I think that since everyone sees what happens on the news about these crimes and even if the person was innocent just because that is the person they got the person is already guilty in many peoples eyes. They come in and have their mind set on putting this person away for the things he did wrong, but that is just human nature.
I agree with this because everyone has their own opinions towards whatever crime is committed whether it be the judge or the jury and opinions will sometimes get in the way of someone's decision making. It is possible for this not to happen but overall, it's difficult for feelings not to become mixed up in the chaos of a case.
It will never be possible for a judge or a jury to be completely unbiased, due the human ability to empath and self-constructed moral obligations. Studies have been conducted and conclude that criminals are more likely to be given lighter sentences or no charges if they are attractive, female, or have children. A different set of studies have shown that the more attractive a person is perceived to be, then the more likely observers are willing to listen and relate to them, which would allow a judge and jurors to sympathize more with the person on the stand. If the criminal is known to have children then the jurors have the potential of worrying about the welfare of the children and letting them go for the sake of someone else. This could also go the opposite direction, being more likely to send out harsher sentences. In Capote's book, the trial of Perry and Dick is hindered by the fact that it takes place in the hometown of the deceased and the conflicting emotions behind the death penalty.
I agree with this because humans are always subject to empathy and sympathy, it's such a natural reflex for us to turn to , and to follow up on. And Perry and Dick get judged so harshly because the Clutters were such great people in the town.
I did not know about the trials conducted to show biased conditions and I too agree that a jury cannot be completely unbiased because it is human nature to sympathize with others.
I completly agree with you Hannah, human nature shows that we are influenced by the behaviors,appearances and even small information about different things. There is a reason propaganda works on humans, its used to influence the decisions and opinions of people. If something about a criminal can be used to influence the jury or judge then an attorney will use it. Therefore even if humans were capable of being entirely unbiased, the attorneys wouldn't want them to be, and therefore the judge or jury is now biasd.
I agree with your statement because people will believe what they want to. no matter what they are told they will believe it unless they can relate with eaither the victim or the defenedent. With them holding the trial in the Clutter's hometown their are alot of feelings especially with the people the Clutter's have helped.
I agree with your statement Hannah, I did not even think about if the person on trial had kids or if the were good looking. That could swing the sentence in any way. Perry and Dick were treated wrong because how the Clutters were such respected throughout the community.
Until the day that an AI is able to process information in regards to what is right or wrong, a human jury will never be completely neutral to any case or trial. For there must be a balance maintained between compassion to both the victims and the culprits of any given crime. To be unbiased would require each member of the jury to have experienced all details of the lives of anyone involved in the crime. All of each persons jubilations, wrath, trauma, and much more.
In the case where the Jury is made up of people whose lives are similar to that of the victims such as the example that is "In Cold Blood," many of those on the jury were from the same town as the Clutter family. Which in turn pulled them to wanting justice for the crime.
I completely agree with this. it is impossible to experience all details of another human life, but with the experiences your do share you empathize, with the one you understand you sympathize, with the experiences that are contrary and not relatable to yours; we fear them. this comes instinctually to the human mind.
While I do agree with what you say when you state that a completely unbiased jury would have to know all details of the crime and persons involved, I believe that the opposite could also pose a fair jury. By that, I mean that if a jury who didn't know the people involved personally was given only key details of the crime and basic information on the people, that it would grant a similarly fair trial.
I feel like a judge is supposed to be unbiased. Most of the time if a judge knows the person, he won't be on that case to decide. The jury on the other hand will always be biased. They will have their own opinions on how the situation should go. This can be put into the situation of the Clutters. There was only one judge, and everyone in that town was fond of the Clutters, so they all wanted justice for the Clutter family. It;s supposed to be unbiased, but it rarely ever is.
I agree with this. Both are suppose to be unbiased but are not. In agreement with you, how are they suppose to be unbiased in a town that knows everyone? I feel that most people try to have an unbiased state-of-mind but are their original thoughts on the event to take a role in their decision making.
It is possible for the jury and judge to make decisions that are unbiased Despite this, both the judge and the jury will never be entirely unbiased. In the case of Dick and Perry's trial, it is said that the judge was well acquainted with Herb Clutter. Similarly, many people on the jury were familiar with the Clutter family as well. Because of this relation to the deceased, they contain bias which can be observed when Dick and Perry are sentenced with the death penalty.
I agree with this. Had Dick and Perry been granted a change of venue, they would have had a much fairer trial. Judge Tate did not even allow Dick and Perry to be examined by psychiatrists in Larned in regards to their sanity. He ruled that they should be examined by doctors from Garden City (268). Even the doctors' professional opinions could have been biased in this case.
I believe it is possible for the judge to be unbiased but i dont believe it to be possible for the jury to be the same, as there are many people within it and there would be way to many beliefs within it and also possibly some relations to the prosecutor.
I certainly believe that it is impossible for both the judge and the jury to be completely unbiased. it is human nature to uncanny feeling of empathy towards another human in whom you share experiences and likeness with, in things such as race, religion, common struggles, etc... It will be instinctual to grant that person favor whether it be merited or not.
I completely agree with your statement. It is in our human nature to show empathy to others that we understand what they are going through or with the way they think.
I do not find it possible to believe that a judge and jury can be completely unbiased. As te judge is supposed to be the most unbiased, something in a case will make him/her think one way or another. Like in the book, the judge and jury had already heard of the Clutter family and stories about them. A bias could have been formed from that.
I agree, the brief remembrance of the Clutter family had already brought bias to the minds of the judge and jury. If Perry and Dick were granted a change in venue the outcome would probably be different because no one would have known the Clutter intimately or in passing.
I agree with the statement Boxtop. Judge Tate was completely biased because of the fact that he was from the small town that the Clutter were from. Judges and Jury's are supposed be unbiased and have no relations to the trials at hand because it can sway the decisions they make.
I believe that it is impossible for a judge and a jury to be unbiased. I especially think that juries are biased. Being just normal citizens, they might relate to the victim and so be influenced to give a harsh punishment to the criminal. It is impossible for a person to fully block out their emotions in the decisions they make. Judges are supposed to be unbiased, but they are human beings and it is impossible for them to not be influenced in their decisions. Physical appearances and other factors may appeal or not to people and that influences their judgments on them.
I believe that yes, juries are biased, but they do not fully decide the punishment of the criminal. They influence the decision of the judge, in which the judge is very much easily susceptible in being biased as well. Also, because they are the judge and jury, they can not make decisions based on emotion. In the novel, the Clutter family were well known people, so to the reader they have a choice in believing that the jury and judge were biased, but the judge and jury have to go with facts so with this being a little town, the judge has no choice, but to hang the characters in the novel, to one, keep them from escaping and murdering more innocents, and two, to calm the people.
I agree with you but I don't think it's completely impossible for a judge or jury to be unbiased. There of course will be people who come into a court with a fixed mindset on their decision because of how they feel towards the situation that took place. We as people always want justice when it comes to murder to people who don't deserve it, especially in the Clutter's case, but it IS possible to put someone away on facts and not feelings.
I do not believe that a judge and jury could be totally unbiased, even though they are technically supposed to be fair, the name judge is put in place for a reason, for their opinion to be established along with the jury. In the novel, the judge and the jury knew the Clutters', therefore, they were biased and of course they had wanted justice and peace in their little town.
A jury or judge has to be completely unbiased in order to judge just as any other job requires such key abilities. However, for a judge it will never be possible to not be emotional touched and by that to a surten degree biased. This can obviously be good or bad for the accused person. In Capote's book In Cold Blood, the solution of Dick and Perry is being judged by the jury and judge in the hometown of the killed family which influenced the decision.
It is never possible for a judge or jury to be completely unbiased. Everyone has their own opinions that are impossible to remove. However, the judge or jury should set aside these biases and make a decision based on strictly fact. In this book, the Dick and Perry did not receive a fair trial because they were assumed guilty from the beginning. The town needed to believe that the killers had been caught. Their lawyers thought that their situation was so helpless that it did not matter whether or not they were tried in Holcomb and did not request a change of venue (266).
I agree with your points, Kelsey. I think the most significant fact of the trial is that it was held in Holcomb, where it should have been impossible to obtain an unbiased opinion. Capote's account of the trial and its procedure shows the difficult nature of law and the ethical questions that it creates.
A jury and or judge cannot in no possible way be completely unbiased because people have such a complex mind system that small arguments or phrases can trigger panic attacks or even PTSD. Because of the human nature to categorize people and situations humans often reject others for beliefs, and even though a jury member can claim to not know the subject on trial evidence brought to them about the subject's life and beliefs can alter their view if their beliefs happen to be the same or opposite.
I do not believe it is possible for a jury or a judge to be unbiased. For example, everyone in Holcomb knew the Clutters and therefore making anyone in town biased towards anyone that could be a possible suspect to their case. As well as in the beginning of the book the Clutters are described as a family that was very involved in the community and a family that anyone loved making a large population of the town biased about their case.
I totally agree with your points, Kyndal. I also really liked your example. Because the Clutter family was so involved in the community, and everybody loved them, the whole town was emotionally affected, which made them bias.
I do not believe that it is possible for a judge and jury to be completely unbiased in their convictions of a trial. A judge who has been doing their job for an amount of time just begins to make assumptions about the convicted persons, and develops a point of view about certain cases, people, etc. A jury all has their different feelings about the crime that is happening and will develop their own though of what has happened and run with it .
I don't think a jury or a judge can ever be completely unbiased or biased. For example, the Clutter family murder caused everyone to wonder why someone would murder them when everyone knew how involved and friendly they were with everyone in Holcomb. Making everyone in Holcomb a biased to this case.
I believe that it is possible for a judge to be unbiased in a case. However, Capote's account of the trial shows that this did not happen. Judge Tate was one of many in the room who had been acquainted with Mr. Clutter. In the events leading up to the trial, we can see him deny the defendant's attempts to create a fair trial, such as postponing the date (269). In addition, the jury chosen for the case was not unbiased in the least, considering that each had been acquainted with Mr. Clutter (273). Capote clearly emphasizes that there is prejudice against the suspects in both the judge and the jury.
Jose! I agree with you, because the trial was composed of residents of Holcomb the bias in the Jury was very prominent.The location of a trial would play a large part in controlling the bias of a jury. Defense attorneys often try to move trials to more neutral locations in order to eliminate bias within the Jury.
If the judge or jury is personally involved it is impossible to be unbiased. If the judge or jury has some kind of emotions they cannot separate from their job they have to do, it is impossible. Dewey's wife tells him that the investigation is not good for him, because he cannot stop thinking about it. Dewey is personally involved. However, it is the judges job to be able to separate their feelings from their decisions.
It is impossible for a jury or judge to be completely unbiased. Every human being has their own opinions, their own experiences, and their own sense of what is right and what is wrong. People cannot help themselves but to apply their own opinions to things. The judge and jury who heard the Clutter's case would not have been able to separate themselves because Mr. Clutter was an outgoing man, and more then likely they would have had some experience with him, therefore being unbiased is impossible in the trail.
I cannot agree more with this. Especially with the considerations of any one's perspective of right and wrong, and how that can vastly differ from the perspective of somebody else, essentially creating bias.
Judges and Jurys can never be completely unbiased. Even without adding in how human nature behaves, Lawyers and judges can select juries by a process known as “voir dire,” In voir dire, the judge and attorneys for both sides ask potential jurors questions to determine if they are suitable to serve in the case, they can ask questions that give indication on which side the juror will choose. The attorney's will then be allowed to pick the people they want to be the jury and that they hope will win them the case. Its true that those people wont necessarily for sure choose one side, but this can mean that no matter how unbiased one person in a jury may be the jury is meant to ultimately be biased.
In In Cold Blood by having the jury be people from the town and area that the Clutters were murdered in it was almost without certainty that the jury would be biased towards a guilty verdict.
Most definitely not. It can never be possible for a judge or the jury to be completely unbiased. Taking the case of the book, it can easily be observed that the majority of people living in the town of Holcomb knew the Clutter family while the murderers were, in the eyes of the town, ruthless killers who needed to be dragged to justice. This obviously creates an immediate bias throughout the population of the town in connection to the murders. In Dick and Perry’s final trial, even the judge stood in good connection with Herb Clutter which obviously creates yet another bias and this time, from the person with the most power in court. It can therefore be concluded that the jury as well as the judge can never be completely unbiased.
Again, I agree with some portions of your argument, while disagreeing with another. I do not find that juries or judges can never be impartial or unbiased. For example, if the jury and judge do not know the defendant or prosecutor, and both the defendant and prosecutor are the same race and social status, then the trial could potentially lead to an unbiased verdict. However, bias is extremely prevalent in the case of Perry and Dick as the entire jury and judge all knew the Clutters in one way or another. It was inevitable that the verdict would be guilty for the two.
It will never be possible for a jury to be completely unbiased. Even if you built a jury of people who had NEVER heard of the victims. Race, class, religion, anything you could possibly think of, will sway opinions. In In Cold Blood, the jury is made out of a small town of people where everyone knows everyone whether they like it or not. The judge himself was acquainted with Herb Clutter. There was most definitely bias because everyone knew the family as well-to-do and least likely to ever have any bad standings with anyone, which is why they pushed the prospect aside if it ever threatened to pop up.
It is not possible to have an unbiased jury.
I think it is possible for a jury to be unbiased. Whether a jury is bias or unbiased depends on who is in the jury, if the people in the jury are well acquainted with the victims it would be very difficult to keep their own emotions out of the final verdict. However, if the jury is made up of a neutral party their biases are minimized.
I agree with you buddy. Those are some great points and they go almost hand in hand with my comment. I agree that its not completely impossible for a jury or judge to be unbiased but there are major factors that might affect their decision making especially if they are acquainted with the victims.
I personally think that t would be difficult to find juries that are completely unbiased but it is definitely possible. We must understand that any jury is a sample of the community thus it is only natural that they are somewhat biased. Judges however, are meant to be completely unbiased but then again, its difficult to find such qualities especially in a town as small as Holcomb where everyone knows everyone. The death of Mr. Clutter and his family who were so involved with the community could have sparked an biased mindset in juries and judges.
It is impossible for a judge and jury to be completely without bias. A judge or Juror could easily be influenced in their decision making, not by the evidence presented, but the person on trial. Even if somebody is innocent, a judge or juror could hate their race, gender or religion, and pronounce them guilty simply based on that alone. Additionally, a judge or juror could personally know the person on trial, and their decision would be affected as a result. With so many aspects of a person that can be judged or hated, it creates an impossibility for the chances of ever having an unbiased judge or jury.
This is exactly how I feel. Truman Capote even talks about this in the book during Perry and Dick's trial. The judge knew Herb Clutter so he would be partial to the death penalty.
As many have said, to find an unbiased jury and/or judge is very difficult, yet not impossible. The jury many times are biased as they can sometimes find something in common with the accused or something against them. The judge, although expected to be unbiased, in many occasions feel either sympathy or anger towards the accused, even a person’s gender can cause the judge to be biased. In the trial to the murder of the Clutters, the jury and the judge had some knowledge of the family and maybe even a connection, making them feel sympathy for the family and anger towards the killers, proving the biased side in one of many possible trials.
Nathan!!! I totally agree with this!! :D It is definitely difficult to find a fully unbiased jury and judge. In the specific case of Dick and Perry I believe it would be nearly impossible because of Holcomb being such a small village where it would have to be rather difficult to have not known or at least been acquaintances with one of the Clutters. So, in Dick and Perry's court case they were faced with a jury and judge who had some experience with the family causing them to immediately accuse the two and sentencing them to death.
I completely agree with the two of you! Even if the jury and judge had never heard about or met the Clutter's family, they would be biased on the case. They would be imagining Dick and Perry murdering their family the same way that they murdered the Clutter's family.,
Although a fair judiciary system is an integral corner-stone in Democracy, it cannot always be untainted by the presence of bias. When a case is presented in front of a jury and judge that both have no prior knowledge of both the defendant nor the prosecution, then the proceedings could theoretically continue without judgement being influenced by bias. However, in the case of Perry and Dick, the court case was entirely biased towards the guilty sentencing of the duo. Being held in the small town of Holcomb where the murder took place, the jury and judge had all known the Clutter family and sought vengeance for their slaughtered friends. No matter if Perry and Dick were the actual murderers or not, the prosecution would have found them guilty due to them being not familiar and being charged with the slaughter of the most eminent family in Holcomb.
While I agree that an unbiased jury is theoretically possible, in practice this is clearly not the case. The Clutters were brutally murdered,true, but there is nore than one injustice in the novel: specifically, the unfair trial of Dick and Perry.
I believe that it is no possible for a judge and jury to be completely unbiased, since a judge who had been doing their job for a while now has maybe seen the same case over and over again, and they will just assume that it's just another one of those cases. A jury has their own personal thoughts and or feelings so they can feel a certain way. For example maybe a mother might not believe that another mother killed her children simply because she is a mother.
Although one would hope that each would be completely unbiased in forming an executive decision, it is highly unlikely that either the jury or the judge could be entirely unbiased. Provided that in the case of Perry and Dick's trial, the judge was acquainted with Herb Clutter and even some of the members of the jury had known the Clutter family in some way prior to the murders, this gave the judge and the jury of the court case a bias against the two. Leading them too agree on sentencing them to death.
I agree with this point that you make in the trial of Perry and Dick. The death sentence for both murderers was affected by the acquaintance of the judge and the Clutters. It is merely impossible to find the unbiased judge and jury for this case, as anyone who knew or had heard of the Clutters would have shown to be biased.
I do not believe that a jury can be completely unbiased because in the case of a particularly gruesome crime, such as the Clutter murders, the details of the crime can leave an impression on the jurors, making it almost impossible for an unbiased trial. Also, the case of murder is often not up to debate in terms of human morals because the murderers side wont be considered as much as the victims because they are dehumanized in the minds of the jurors.
I think that it is impossible for the judge and jurors to be unbiased. The judge is supposed to be fair, but they will always have an opinion towards their subject that will lean their decision making, but they have to be fair, so they could have an opinion and be biased, but then change their mind because they have rules to follow. The jury will always have a certain opinion based on the case and wont ever be completely unbiased, they are real people that have certain outlooks on things and opinions
I do not believe a judge or jury can be completely unbiased. Especially in a case like this that involves a murder in a small town area and some of the jury are people who have met or heard of Herbert Clutter. Giving the jury a sort of bias already towards the murders. I do believe Judge Tate holds back his opinions towards the murders more than the jury does example is shown when some of the jury talk about him. "Tate is what you call a law book lawyer, he never experiments, he goes strictly by the text." showing that he does not let things that do not belong in the court of law such as emotions get in his way. This is also shown when the same jury person said "If I were innocent, he's the first man I'd want on the bench; If I was guilty, the last."(268)
It is impossible for a judge or jury to be completely unbiased. It is built in our human DNA to protect what we care or love about. With this thought in mind, when a person tells us about a murder where two men tied up a family of four, robbed them, and shot them dead, we are going to feel biased because we are imagining these men doing the very same thing to the people that we love and care for. Even if we did not know the family that was murder, we would still imagine this. This is why the judge of this case seemed to always be on the prosecutor's side through out the murder trail.
I believe that a judge or jury can make decisions that are unbiased but this is very difficult. Emotions and feelings will get in the way almost all of the time and we as humans let this be the root of our decision making. A judge and jury should always leave aside any feelings and emotions that they may have towards a certain case but unfortunately, this does not always happen and there is nothing we can do to stop it when you put people in charge of putting someone away. In the Clutter's case, everyone in the small town of Holcomb knew these people so emotions and feelings played a large part in the case.
i agree with you. i believe that emotions will always get in the way of making a decision. I agree that a jury or judge should leave aside emotions and feelings.
I think it is not possible for a jury to be completely unbiased because everyone has their opinions and feelings towards diffrent crimes. Like in the Clutter's case everyone knew what type of people the they were so no matter what the Perry and Dick had to say the jury wanted the most harsh punishement. The jury sometimes even go inwith their mind made up because of the case subject annd no matter what is said they will not change their minds.
I believe that it is impossible for one to judge a trial to be unbiased. In this story in particularly, the small town of Holcomb is a very boisterous one. Almost everyone in the town knows what goes on within its limits.The jury of the trial were referred to as "the aristocracy" to label the kind of people that are deciding the fate of the two Perry and Dick. In the event of the trial the witnesses called upon on behalf for Perry and Dick described them as "likeable", But to the jury they were strictly focused on mentally labeling them as merciless murderers that need to be punished for the murder of an innocent family. The jury of a trial is supposed to be a fair one, with no bias or heavy one-sided opinions, however it is evident that the judge and jury are convincing themselves to prosecute a common enemy, in this case, murderers who came in to an innocent family's home within Holcomb and ended their lives. When Judge Tate instructs the jury he says, "Can there be a single doubt in your minds regarding the guilt of these defendants? No! Regardless of who pulled the trigger on Richard Eugene Hickock's shotgun, both men are equally guilty." (p.303) This instruction is bias to the fact that the judge doesn't want runaway criminals to be found mentally unstable, and seeks conformation by the jury by applying this instruction.
I believe it that it is impossible to get completely unbiased jury. Everyone is a little biased inside, it is just human nature. Especially in a murder case that happened in the book, there will be people that feel a certain way towards the killer. They will be influenced by emotion, causing their vote to be biased. Either the judge or one of the jury members would be biased and that would affect the overall court case.
I do not believe that it is Possible for a Judge nor a Jury to be unbiased during a trial. Human nature is a big factor in this statement. Many feelings such as; sympathy, empathy, and anger can play a factor into people's reasoning and decision making. In Dick and Perry's case, the trial was held in Holcomb instead of a different setting, so the jury and Judge Tate, knew the Clutters and held a personal bias against Dick and Perry. They sympathized with the Clutters.
No jury, nor judge for that matter, are completely unbiased. In the end, both judge and jury are people, and people come with their own set of circumstances. This is why there are jury selection processes; both defense and prosecution need as fair a trial as possible. In the book, the jury and judge are clearly bias towards Dick and Perry; the judge will not even let a psychological analysis be shown to the court because it has the potential to create sympathy for Dick and Perry.
I think that a judge or jury will always be biased in some form. A persons decision will be biased towards what they think is right or wrong. If a person thinks something is right they are biased toward what they think is right even though a person might think they are wrong.
I agree. A person can never be fully unbiased, even if he or she says they are. This is because of preconceived notions of a person. We can take one look at someone, the case, and the evidence and make a swift judgment of the person. This makes us instantly biased.
I believe that there can never be a completely unbiased judge or juror. Everyone has their opinions to a case and this will influence them in the case. It may cause them to listen more intently to the side of their agreement or to be close-minded to the side that they do not agree with. I know I am like this.