1. background Title:Patricia Hearst’s Case Student’s name: Professor’s name: Course title: Date:

2. introduction Patricia Campbell Hearst, a daughter, wife and a mother of the united states citizenship was born in 1954, in the year 1974, while she was just 19-year-old, a student living in Berkeley, California by the time, Patricia was abducted by a terrorist group known as the symbionese liberation army (SLA). she was isolated and threatened with death, she was given an option of either joining the cartel or meet her maker which she chose to become supportive of their cause. after a long 19 months, Patricia was found, by which time she was already fugitive of justice wanted for some serious crimes. as a result she was held in custody. at trial the prosecution made Hearst's character and sexual morality such a big issue, they suggested that it was just a propaganda about her been raped while being held prisoner by the SLA. hence she was found guilty of bank robbery. however, her conviction and imprisonment were viewed as unjust, but the procedural correctness of her trial was upheld by the courts. her sentence was commuted by president jimmy carter, but luckily pardoned by president bill Clinton.

3. terms DEFINITION CRIME: crime is a term that describes unlawful harmful acts to an individual, group or the public and is punishable by law by imprisonment, fine or at some extremes, death. violence, robbery, murder, assault and many others are some of the known crimes in the globe known to exist. age, gender, race are among some of the most commonly known factors that influence crime but beside them as well exist some psychological and sociological factors, (Aquinas, 1988). LAW: law, can be described a body of official rules and regulations, that are mostly located in a constitutions, legislation, judicial opinions, that are used to govern and control the society and the behavior of its members, (Souper, 2008).

4. Patricia’s characteristics that would sway the jury her way THREATENED she was living a life of threats against her life after she was abducted FEAR blindfolded, in a closet for weeks and a life of threats kept her in fear and so would do anything to save her skin PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPAIRMENT fear impaired her psychological sense of what's right and wrong and turned her to one of them SOCIOLOGICAL INFLUENCE the influence of living with criminal, murderers and rapists made her change to adapt

5. Characteristics for defense jury selection NON-BIASED a jury who wont judge based on personal matters and feelings UNDERSTANDING a jury who evaluates the situation typically as it is and tries to understand and weigh the defendants options FAIR one who will pass judgment out of justice PSYCHOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGEABLE a jury who understands the defendants, Patricia, psychological situation and how it can affect her actions EXPERIENCED a jury with years of experience in handling such cases and passing judgment from past experiences and research

6. Characteristics for defense jury selection RELATIONSHIP a jury with no relations of any kind with the defendant so as to avoid biased judgment INTERNET FOOTPRINT a jury that does not belong to some social media influence or threat through the internet that will impair their judgment RELIGION some religions hinder one from passing some judgments, hence the defense should avoid such a jury GOOD LEADERSHIP SKILLS leadership skills in a jury will allow them to play as role models and make a decision based on justice

7. Patricia’s characteristics that would sway the jury against her PRESENTATION how she behaves herself before the jury determines what the jury will perceive about her APPEARANCE how smart she look, how presentable she seems. dressing code or rather the image she shows out to the jury speak half-way of the person she is or the jury will perceive her to be VERBAL IMPRESSION patricians words in trial, in front of the jury as well will portray what or who she is, vulgar language portrays more or less that the accusations presented against oneself may have some weight

8. Characteristics for prosecution jury selection STRICT a strict jury does not seek to understand the defendant but just views matters based on the defendants wrong doing and thinks justice is holding them behind closed doors to teach them a lesson despite the forces behind the defendants actions RELIGION some religion hinder decision making and hence a jury from such religions may be bent to make the decision the prosecution side wants them to. ATTITUDE nothing worse to have as a jury than a jury with a bad attitude towards the defendant, a single mistake from the defendant that may piss of the jury will get them guilty NEGATIVE EXPERIENCES a jury who have been probably a victim of a similar case before will definitely not think twice or even feel sympathy upon the defendant

9. FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGIST A forensic psychologist can be described as an art of interaction that intersects between psychology and the justice system. it’s a study that involves the understanding of basic legal principles, in order to make it easy to interact appropriately with the law and its components, (Adler, 2004). In patricians case, a forensic psychologist would be of use so as to intervene before the jury on patricians behalf and present her mental trauma that would have been a probable cause of her actions, as well as help her out of her mental state of trauma and distress

10. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGIST sociological factors of crime are said to include experience that affect the personality, attitude and the kind of path one takes in their life, (akers, 1998). hence a social psychologist deals with people who have been under the influence of bad company that as a result sways them off their path to joining their wrong doing such as Patricia was swayed by the SLA gang to either join them or die. after a long time of exposure, one become just like the gang as Patricia did and hence a social psychologist would be needed to walk Patricia out of her gang life and teach her how to be presentable in front of a jury.

11. AQUINAS, T. (1988). LAW AND CRIME SOUPER, M. (2008). LAW. AKERS, R. L. (1998). SOCIAL STRUCTURE. BOSTON.