Expert Witnesses, Judges, and Media Influence
Expert witnesses wield massive influence because juries trust their specialised knowledge without question. When a doctor or forensic scientist speaks, their words carry the weight of scientific authority - even when they're completely wrong.
Sally Clark's tragic case demonstrates this perfectly. An expert witness claimed the odds of losing two babies to cot death were 1 in 73 million, making murder seem like the only explanation. This false statistic sent an innocent mother to prison for life, when the real odds were actually 1 in 130,000.
Judges shape outcomes through their legal guidance to juries and their own potential biases. Since 65% of judges are men, cases involving crimes against women might not receive the sympathy they deserve. In juryless trials, one judge holds all the power, amplifying any personal prejudices.
The media adds another layer of influence, despite instructions for juries to avoid news coverage. Research shows 26% of jurors in high-profile cases see online reports during trials. During the 2011 London riots, media pressure led to sentences averaging two months longer than usual.
Key Point: Multiple human factors can override pure facts, showing that justice isn't as objective as we'd like to believe.