A measure of social status was proposed which employed the ratio of available jurors to the number raised to foremen. It was hypothesized the measure might determine the status of a minority or subgroup. To ascertain the availability of information and to obtain data for comparison, a feasibility study was conducted with females as the minority group. It determined the proportion of female to male jury foremen elected in two Federal Court Districts in the Southwest, 1971–74. In 155 juries, women were elected as jury foremen one-fifth as often as expected by their number.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BevanW.AlbertR. S.LoiseauxP. R.MayfieldP. N.WrightG.Jury behavior as a function of the prestige of the foreman and the nature of his leadership. Journal of Public Law, 1958, 7, 419–449.
2.
BrownD. G.Sex-role preference in young children. Psychological Monographs, 1956, 70, No. 14 (Whole No. 105).
3.
GoldbergP. A.Are women prejudiced against women?Trans-Action, 1968, 5(5), 28–30.
4.
LyleJ. F.RossJ. L.Women in industry. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1973.
5.
LynnN.Women in American politics: an overview. In FreemanJ. (Ed.), Women: a feminist perspective. Palo Alto, Calif.: Mayfield Publ., 1975. Pp. 364–385.
6.
MurphyI. L.Public policy on the status of women. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1973.
7.
SnyderE. C.Sex role differential and juror decisions. Sociology and Social Research, 1971, 55, 442–448.
8.
StrodtbeckF. L.JamesR. M.HawkinsC.Social status in jury deliberations. American Sociological Review, 1957, 22, 6, 713–719.
9.
U'RenM.The image of women in textbooks. In GornickV.MorganB. (Eds.), Women in sexist society. New York: Basic Books, 1971. Pp. 318–328.
10.
Women Today, 1971, 15, No. 1.
11.
ZeiselH.Some data in juror attitudes towards capital punishment. Chicago: Center for the Study of Criminal Justice, Univer. of Chicago, 1968.
