Editing Jury (section)

===Sentencing disparities===
Jurors, like most individuals, are not free from holding social and cognitive [[List of cognitive biases|biases]], which could result in [[sentencing disparities]]. People may negatively judge individuals who do not adhere to established [[Norm (social)|social norms]] (e.g., an individual's dress sense) or do not meet societal standards of success. Although these biases tend to influence jurors' individual decisions during a trial,<ref name="Wrightsman">Wrightsman, L., Nietzel, M. T., & Fortune, W. H. (1998). Psychology and the legal system (4th edition). Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole.</ref> while working as part of a group (i.e., jury), these biases are typically controlled.<ref name="Kerr">Kerr, N. L., & Huang, J. Y. (1986). How much difference does one juror make in jury deliberation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 325–343.</ref> Groups tend to exert buffering effects that allow jurors to disregard their initial personal biases when forming a credible group decision. Analysis of over a quarter million felony cases in USA found for grand juries no [[statistical significance]] for [[Taste-based discrimination|taste-based]] or [[Statistical discrimination (economics)|statistical discrimination]] between black and white defendants.<ref>[https://conference.nber.org/conf_papers/f189536.pdf Hoekstra, Mark, Suhyeon Oh, and Meradee Tangvatcharapong. "Are American juries racially discriminatory? Evidence from over a quarter million felony grand jury cases." (2023). NBER]</ref> 
Other studies found significant [[sentencing disparities]] related to [[in-group favoritism]].<ref name="z352">{{cite web | title=Diversity and Fairness in the Jury System | page=165 | year=2007 | publisher=Ministry of Justice (United Kingdom) Research Unit | url=https://www.ucl.ac.uk/judicial-institute/sites/judicial-institute/files/diversity-fairness-in-the-jury-system.pdf | access-date=19 April 2025}}</ref>

Robert Burns cites Plato in arguing that gaining power and ruling wisely are different skillsets, making the case for a jury of those who have not sought power to create better outcomes than trials left up to judges.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Burns |first=Robert P. |url=https://www.worldcat.org/title/243845474 |title=The death of the American trial |date=2009 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-08126-7 |location=Chicago |pages=174 |oclc=243845474}}</ref> Burns further argues that interest groups have increasing influence over political branches, including judges, and that the jury was designed to resist the new Gilded Age-level concentration of power.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Burns |first=Robert P. |title=The death of the American trial |date=2009 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-08126-7 |location=Chicago |pages=116}}</ref> He also cites Blackstone who argued that it was against human nature for the few (judges) to be attentive to the needs of the many.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Burns |first=Robert P. |url=https://www.worldcat.org/title/243845474 |title=The death of the American trial |date=2009 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-08126-7 |location=Chicago |pages=120 |oclc=243845474}}</ref> He also argues the legitimacy of the judiciary increases with a more robust jury.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Burns |first=Robert P. |url=https://www.worldcat.org/title/243845474 |title=The death of the American trial |date=2009 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-08126-7 |location=Chicago |pages=118 |oclc=243845474}}</ref> The trial also provides the public with insight into the conduct of judges and the parties involved, further encouraging good behavior.<ref name=":5" /> Unlike in other major institutions that run on a more bureaucratic utilitarian logic, the jury checks this way of thinking by bringing common-sense and moral perspectives to bear.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Burns |first=Robert P. |url=https://www.worldcat.org/title/243845474 |title=The death of the American trial |date=2009 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-08126-7 |location=Chicago |pages=126-127 |oclc=243845474}}</ref> Burns contrasts the focus on fact for a jury with other political processes like congressional forums, which he argues are undisciplined forums for overbroad abstractions.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Burns |first=Robert P. |url=https://www.worldcat.org/title/243845474 |title=The death of the American trial |date=2009 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-08126-7 |location=Chicago |pages=117, 133 |oclc=243845474}}</ref> Lastly, Burns argues the jury is a vote of confidence for democracy as the most democratic institution (at least in America) and one that demonstrates that it is possible to find common ground on difficult questions, especially when decisions must be unanimous.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Burns |first=Robert P. |title=The death of the American trial |date=2009 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-08126-7 |location=Chicago |pages=117-118}}</ref>