3.1
Examine information for validity
Validity of court judgements and official enquiries
Judgements that are made in court may not always be considered valid, this is because
there are a wide range of factors that can affect the validity of judgements made in court,
including those from the judge and the jury. This can often stem from attitudes, opinions or
unconscious bias, for example, gender or political bias, this can impact the decision that is
made in the courtroom. Additionally, official inquiries can show that the truth can be hidden
for years, and campaigns are often run to reveal the truth.
Applying validity to court judgements
The opinion of jurors and judges can affect judgements, for example due to racial bias,
gender bias and class bias. This questions how valid court judgements are. In terms of
political bias, it has been shown that if a jury views a sentence as being too lenient, there is
a higher chance that they will find the defendant guilty. Therefore, this suggests that political
views on punishment can influence the verdict made in court. Moreover, unconscious
stereotypes can affect verdicts due to racial bias. For example, in the US, a video simulation
proved that white officers are more likely to shoot an unarmed black person than an
unarmed white person. This therefore makes it clear that racial bias can often impact the
decision that is made in stressful situations. Moreover, due to gender bias the jury is often
influenced by more emotional witness stands in court. Therefore, this could mean that
verdicts are invalid because the jury might come to a conclusion based on assumptions and
stereotypes of the victim, rather than basing their conclusions on facts.
For example, this can be illustrated in the case of Jeremy Bamber, where his ex-girlfriend
gave a very emotional stand in court, therefore this influenced the jury to believe that Jeremy
Bamber was guilty simply because the eye witness testimony was very emotional.
Therefore, this shows how court judgements can often be biassed when they are unwilling
to consider other options, for example that Jeremy Bamber was innocent.
Official enquiries/ inquests
If someone dies in police custody as a result of the actions of a public organisation, like the
police and prison, some people may argue that there is a lack of objectivity in the inquest.
The inquest, meaning finding out what happened. This is due to the fact that public
organisations like the police receive state representations, whereas deprived families have
no automatic entitlement to legal aid, this therefore does not lead to a fair treatment.
Therefore, the police can get a better legal team. As a result, this can be considered as
institutional bias because families will not get the same free legal support as the police.
The Hillsborough disaster is a case that shows a lack of validity in official enquiries. In 2009.
The government published a report about the Hillsborough disaster that revealed that the
fans were actually not responsible for what happened, and instead it was due to a lack of
control from the police. The report shows that 41 of the victims would have survived if the
police contacted the emergency services sooner. This shows that the circumstances of the
match day affected how well the police conducted their jobs, it also shows how due to a lack
of currency the police failed to contact the ambulance services sooner because they failed
to communicate well with other officers. The report also proves how there was a police cover
Examine information for validity
Validity of court judgements and official enquiries
Judgements that are made in court may not always be considered valid, this is because
there are a wide range of factors that can affect the validity of judgements made in court,
including those from the judge and the jury. This can often stem from attitudes, opinions or
unconscious bias, for example, gender or political bias, this can impact the decision that is
made in the courtroom. Additionally, official inquiries can show that the truth can be hidden
for years, and campaigns are often run to reveal the truth.
Applying validity to court judgements
The opinion of jurors and judges can affect judgements, for example due to racial bias,
gender bias and class bias. This questions how valid court judgements are. In terms of
political bias, it has been shown that if a jury views a sentence as being too lenient, there is
a higher chance that they will find the defendant guilty. Therefore, this suggests that political
views on punishment can influence the verdict made in court. Moreover, unconscious
stereotypes can affect verdicts due to racial bias. For example, in the US, a video simulation
proved that white officers are more likely to shoot an unarmed black person than an
unarmed white person. This therefore makes it clear that racial bias can often impact the
decision that is made in stressful situations. Moreover, due to gender bias the jury is often
influenced by more emotional witness stands in court. Therefore, this could mean that
verdicts are invalid because the jury might come to a conclusion based on assumptions and
stereotypes of the victim, rather than basing their conclusions on facts.
For example, this can be illustrated in the case of Jeremy Bamber, where his ex-girlfriend
gave a very emotional stand in court, therefore this influenced the jury to believe that Jeremy
Bamber was guilty simply because the eye witness testimony was very emotional.
Therefore, this shows how court judgements can often be biassed when they are unwilling
to consider other options, for example that Jeremy Bamber was innocent.
Official enquiries/ inquests
If someone dies in police custody as a result of the actions of a public organisation, like the
police and prison, some people may argue that there is a lack of objectivity in the inquest.
The inquest, meaning finding out what happened. This is due to the fact that public
organisations like the police receive state representations, whereas deprived families have
no automatic entitlement to legal aid, this therefore does not lead to a fair treatment.
Therefore, the police can get a better legal team. As a result, this can be considered as
institutional bias because families will not get the same free legal support as the police.
The Hillsborough disaster is a case that shows a lack of validity in official enquiries. In 2009.
The government published a report about the Hillsborough disaster that revealed that the
fans were actually not responsible for what happened, and instead it was due to a lack of
control from the police. The report shows that 41 of the victims would have survived if the
police contacted the emergency services sooner. This shows that the circumstances of the
match day affected how well the police conducted their jobs, it also shows how due to a lack
of currency the police failed to contact the ambulance services sooner because they failed
to communicate well with other officers. The report also proves how there was a police cover
