Racially diverse juries both reduce bias and improve decision quality

Evidence

Minorities experience clear and prevalent disadvantages at each stage of the CJS (for a review, see Hunt, 2015). In terms of trial outcomes, minorities fare worse than their White counterparts, particularly Black individuals (e.g., Barnes & Kingsnorth, 1996; Mustard, 2001; Williams et al., 2007). Courts prescribe several protections against the prejudices of legal decisionmakers, and the ability of diversity to guard against biased legal decisions is uncontroversial. Increasing the diversity of juries also has the potential to improve perceptions of the justice system and increase the perceived fairness of criminal justice outcomes (Ellis & Diamond, 2003). Both jurisprudence (e.g., Peters v. Kiff, 1972) and psychological research (e.g., Sommers, 2006) support the idea of increasing the representativeness of juries. Yet barriers to minorities serving on juries (Hannaford-Agor & Waters, 2011) and racial bias in peremptory challenges remain (e.g., Baldus et al., 2001; Rose, 1999). Diversity may benefit jurors beyond simply reducing racial bias because it also has the potential to improve the decision-making of juries (e.g., Peter- Hagene, 2019; Sommers, 2006). — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 916

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the reader’s interest in whether structural diversity remedies outperform explicit anti-bias correction — echoes correction-backfire literature. — connects to: Research confirms that unanimous twelve-member juries deliberate more thoroughly and inclusively. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 876
• corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law: A Definitive Look at…, 916