Women on Juries: A Long Way We’ve Come, A Long Way to Go

As Women’s History Month comes to an end, why not discuss the impact of women on juries? Not too long ago women were not eligible “to serve on juries under the doctrine of propter defectum sexus” which translates into "defect of sex." Gender being a defect? Yes, you read that correctly.

Source: http://www.barneystinsonblog.com 

In the past several decades, women have made great strides in serving as jurors. It wasn’t until 1942 that 28 states allowed women to participate on juries. However, women were still able to claim an exemption due to their sex. A little over a decade later in 1957, The Civil Rights Act was passed that permitted women to serve on federal juries. It wasn’t until almost 20 years later that women were able to serve on state juries for all 50 states.

Now that women are actually able to serve, there’s another hurdle in being selected to sit on the jury. For example, some trial lawyers maintain certain gender stereotypes hold true. A lawyer in Oklahoma City said, “gender makes a big difference when you're picking a jury.” The following are just some “rules of thumb” he believes.

·     “Women are more compassionate than men in most criminal cases, but they can be ruthless when it comes to sex crimes;

·      Men tend to be harder on defendants;

·      Heterosexual men tend to respond negatively to gay men; and

·   Homosexuals, men and women alike, are sympathetic to mistreatment. ("Like black people, they are sensitive to injustice because they have had a lot of it put on them.").”

While it’s forbidden to make exclusions based on gender, it’s obvious that attorneys still keep it mind. Some attorneys have agreed that women are more plaintiff friendly in cases surrounding “sexual abuse, harassment, paternity or lawsuits alleging bias.”

The above-mentioned stereotypes may not be entirely baseless. A British study of over 3,000 criminal cases lends the beliefs of trial attorneys some support. The studies findings are below:

·    “When women were on juries — even when they were outnumbered by men, as was the case in the early years after implementation of the act — conviction rates for sex offense cases increased by 16 percent;

·     The inclusion of women also increased the likelihood of juries being discharged without reaching a verdict on all charges and increased the average time taken to reach a verdict; and

·    Taken as a whole, the results of our analysis imply that female representation on juries substantially affects the likelihood of conviction for a subset of cases — sexual and violent crimes — in which female jurors might have viewed the alleged behavior or its impact on the victim from a different perspective than their male counterparts.”

hile it’s forbidden to make exclusions based on gender, it’s obvious that attorneys still keep it mind. Some attorneys have agreed that women are more plaintiff friendly in cases surrounding “sexual abuse, harassment, paternity or lawsuits alleging bias.”

The inclusion of women on juries added different viewpoints that were missing before. Of course there are exceptions to everything, but for the most part, women bring something to juries that men do not.