Final answer:
Jurors might accept excuses such as 'rotten childhood' because they may sympathize with the defendant or believe that such backgrounds can influence behavior. They are expected to be impartial, though biases and preconceived notions can sometimes influence decisions. Plea bargains offer an alternative route in the legal process where such emotional appeals are less influential in the outcome.
Step-by-step explanation:
Jurors may tend to accept excuses such as a "rotten childhood" for a few reasons. One reason is that they may sympathize with the defendant, acknowledging the impact of a troubled upbringing on behavior. Another reason jurors might be swayed is that they believe such backgrounds can indeed influence one's behavior, leading to criminal acts. However, jurors are expected to put aside personal biases and prejudices, acknowledging their duty to remain impartial. Despite this, jurors' decisions are sometimes influenced by media coverage and their own life experiences, demonstrating the challenge of eliminating bias from the courtroom.
The process of jury selection involves weeding out potential jurors who might have biases that could prevent a fair trial. This speaks to the importance of maintaining a justice system where the accused are judged based on evidence rather than preconceived notions or emotional appeals. Lawyers play a critical role in this process by questioning potential jurors and removing those with evident biases.
Alternatively, many defendants opt for plea bargains to avoid the uncertainty of a trial, where emotions and jury biases may play a role in the outcome. Plea bargains can result in more predictable and sometimes more lenient outcomes than a jury trial might provide.