1 / 24

juries: us and france

US and France: similar histories regarding composition of juries. Initially,US: white male landownersFrance: bankers,highly placed functionaries, status and moneyEventually,Right to serve on juries became democratized in both countries. Discrimination remained. IN both the US and in France,under-representation of the very poor and the very rich, females (esp in France), the very young and the very old..

liam
Download Presentation

juries: us and france

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Juries: US and France Charlan Jeanne Nemeth Univ California, Berkeley USA Presentation to Jury Research Conference, Sydney University Law School, Sydney, NSW Oct 17, 2003

    3. Discrimination remained IN both the US and in France, under-representation of the very poor and the very rich, females (esp in France), the very young and the very old.

    4. Juries in the United States 12 people (normally); all laymen deliberate to unanimity (normally) deliberation is secret no one is present except jurors (ordinary citizens) for deliberation

    5. Juries in France 12 people on “jury” consisting of 3 judges and 9 laymen Only 8 out of 12 votes are needed for conviction

    6. Power/Status: Judges “inside” the jury France: 3 judges deliberate with 9 lay jurors on both conviction and punishment Red robes, at elevated table surrounded by beautiful art and long traditions Status induces compliance

    7. The issue of unanimity 12 unanimous vs 8:4 It almost changed in the US: Apodaca etal v Oregon; Johnson v Louisiana (l970)

    8. “First Ballot” and “Final Verdict”

    9. Apodaca,Cooper and Madden v.Oregon Johnson vs. Louisiana -- Court Opinion (Nemeth,1981;2001)

    10. Apodaca,Cooper and Madden v Oregon Johnson v Louisiana -- Dissenting Opinion

    11. The experimental evidence Most studies show no significant differences in verdict as a function of unanimity vs some sort of majority rule Groups “hang” more often under require-ments of unanimity A 2/3 majority “wins”

    12. Questions If unanimity NOT required, would minority views be given due consideration? Would there be premature consideration --stop after requisite majority is reached would community confidence be undermined?

    13. An experiment and Trial Court (Nemeth,1976;1981,2001) First degree murder case in experimental setting:2/3 majority vs unanimity required Trial court practice: arson, contract default, murder,etc.

    14. The answers Stopping short of unanimity (as soon as the requisite majority is reached)? Maj rule: Stop short of unanimity but do not stop at requisite majority 4:2 5:1 6:0 4 9 5

    15. The answers Due consideration to minority views Functional deliberation time Maj rule Unanimity 12.45 17.66

    16. The answers Community confidence Agreement with verdict Maj Unan 3.77 4.45 Justice administered Maj Unan 3.49 3.78

    17. The answers: The nature of the deliberation More “conflict” under unanimity comments “giving information”; “giving opinions”

    18. Bales Categories Nemeth,1976

    19. The nature of the deliberation Functional deliberation time greater under requirement of unanimity. Minority views are expressed --equivalent comments to majority for longer time.

    20. The difficult question: how is justice best served, truth best detected? Protection of minority views may be important, not because they hold a “truth” but because their views stimulate divergent information processing and thought.

    21. MINORITIES stimulate: search for more infor- mation on all sides utilization of all strategies detection of novel,correct solutions more creativity;better group decision making MAJORITIES stimulate search for information supporting majority utilization of majority strategy following of majority; no novel detection reduced creativity; premature consensus

    22. Process for detection of truth? Smarter people? The role of education, training, expertise Stimulating divergent thought? Protecting minority views by less status differences and a requirement for unanimity??

    23. Questions of Democracy and “Due Process” Do we really trust the layman? OR Do we prefer the educated, the expert Do we want majorities to rule? OR Do we require unanimity, protect minority views and take the chance of “hung” juries

    24. Selected References Bermant, G., Nemeth,C & Vidmar,N (eds (1976) Psychology and the Law: Research Frontiers. Lexington,MA: D.C.Heath &Co. Nemeth,C (1977) Interactions between jurors as a function of majority vs unanimity decision rules. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 7, 38-56. Nemeth,C. (1981) Jury trials: Psychology and the Law. In L. Berkowitz (ed) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology(vol 14,pp309-367). New York: Academic Press Nemeth, C (1984) Processus de groupe et jurys: Les Etats-Unis et la France. In S. Moscovici (ed) Psychologie Sociale (pp229-251). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Nemeth, C (1995 Dissent as driving cognition, attitudes and judgments.Social Cognition, 13, 273-291. Nemeth,C.J. (2001) Dissent, diversity and juries. In F.Butera and G. Mugny (eds) Social Influence n Social Reality (pp23-32). Bern: Hogrefe & Huber.

More Related