Perceptions of jury duty: Satisfaction and overall impression (original) (raw)
Related papers
Juror reactions to jury duty: perceptions of the system and potential stressors
Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 2005
Jurors were surveyed on their general perceptions of the court system and factors that may cause stress immediately after trial, after participating in a post-trial debriefing, and a month after trial. Jurors had an overall positive view of the court system but did report some perceived inequities. The two most stressful elements of jury duty were related to the complexity of the trial and the decision-making involved in the trial, although jurors reported low levels of stress overall. Women reported more stress than men, and trial characteristics such as trial length also affected stress levels. The debriefing intervention was perceived as helpful, but jurors' stress levels were similar at pre- and post-debriefing. Finally, although stress on some measures was lower at the 1 month follow-up, this reduction was not moderated by whether or not jurors received the debriefing. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Selected to Serve: An Analysis of Lifetime Jury Participation
Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2012
Using a survey of a random sample of 1,380 Texas adults, we consider what factors distinguish those who have ever had an opportunity to serve on a jury from those who have not ("lifetime participation"). Residential stability and willingness to serve distinguished former jurors from those who had never been summoned or had never been questioned for a case. After controlling for age, neither race nor ethnicity accounted for participation, a finding replicated in data from another state. No factors differentiated former jurors from people who have been questioned but never selected. Our results strongly indicate that improvements to participation should focus on attrition that occurs before potential jurors reach the courtroom.
Law and Human Behavior, 1988
Two studies examined citizens' perceptions of the criminal jury and their evaluations of 6-or 12person juries operating under unanimous or majority decision rules. Study 1 was a telephone survey of 130 adult citizens in which respondents evaluated alternative jury structures in the abstract. In Study 2, students were asked to evaluate jury structures for a hypothetical trial in which they were either the defendant or the victim in a crime with a mild or serious outcome. In both studies, jury size and decision rule were related to ratings of procedural cost, and the severity of the crime moderated procedural evaluations. In Study 1, juries were preferred to judges and the 12-person unanimous jury was preferred over other jury structures when the crime involved was serious. In Study 2, there were no direct effects due to variations in jury structure, but subjects appeared to trade off procedural cost and thoroughness of deliberation as a function of the seriousness of the crime. Procedural fairness emerged as the strongest independent predictor of desirability for jury procedures, and fairness was related to representativeness and accuracy. The role manipulation did not influence subjects' responses. In both studies, respondents were very supportive of the jury as an institution, despite a perception that erroneous jury verdicts do occur.
The impact of jury experience on perception of the criminal prosecution system
International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 2018
The present study tested the impact of jury experience on citizens' perceptions of the criminal prosecution system. Based on deliberative democratic theory which predicts the beneficial impact of jury experience on citizen-jurors' confidence and knowledge in law and the justice system, it was hypothesized that jury experience would be associated with favorable impression of the criminal prosecution system and that jury experience would have a positive impact on citizens' perceived knowledge of the criminal prosecution system. The present study through analyzing data collected by the American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI), examined the effect of jury experience (versus no jury experience) on perceptions of the criminal prosecution system. Results show that jury experience positively influences citizen-jurors' impression and perceived knowledge of the criminal prosecution, supporting an attitudinal and educational impact of jury experience. Potential limitations of the study and policy implications are discussed.
The United States jury system is unique in the world in the frequency of its use and its symbolic significance as a democratic institution. As Neil Vidmar writes, the American jury “remains a strong and vibrant institution even as it suffers criticism and calls for reform.” If the jury is “the lamp that shows that freedom lives,” it is ironic that so little is known about what impact the jury system as a democratic institution has on the citizenry who serve as jurors. Improving our understanding of the jury’s impact is vital, as many nations may choose to adopt or reject the jury based partly on beliefs about how jury service shapes the civic beliefs and actions of citizen-jurors. In particular, legal scholars Kent Anderson and Mark Nolan point out that the proponents of Japan’s new “quasi-jury” system marshaled two arguments in favor of greater public participation in the Japanese legal system — better and equitable legal outcomes and “the belief that it promotes a more democratic society.” Do juries, in fact, have such impacts? One theoretical justification for believing juries can help to sustain democracy comes from the work of small-group-communication scholar Ernest Bormann. His Symbolic Convergence Theory has helped to demonstrate that repeated, salient cultural practices can establish habitual ways of communicating in groups. As Bormann explains, successions of otherwise unremarkable public and educational group meetings, along with instruction about effective group behavior, over the course of decades gradually built the “public-discussion model” that emerged in the United States in the 20th century (and persists to this day). For nearly a century, that cultural model has shaped how people talk and think about group problem solving in the U.S. In a similar way, the cultural-institutional legacy of jury service may be public confidence in jury deliberation itself, as well as in the judges who oversee the process. Thus, we theorize that jury service promotes public support for the larger legal process in which citizens participate as jurors. If true, this finding would have tremendous significance for other nations — including Japan, Taiwan, and Mexico — that are considering implementing the all-citizen jury system, because the reforms they implement could be expected to bolster public faith and confidence in the legal system itself.
Portrait of a Juror: A Selected Bibliography
Marquette Law Review, 1986
Narratives: Lawyers, Judges and Law Students II. Journalists' Reports of Judges' and Lawyers' Experiences as Jurors III. Personal Narratives: Non-Lawyers IV. Journalists Reports of Laypersons' Experiences as Jurors AMERICAN JuRoRs' IMPRESSIONS OF JURY DUTY Millions of American citizens have served as jurors. For most, their jury experience is the most intimate they will have with the court system and being a juror is an opportunity for first-hand participation in governmental decision making. For a few, namely lawyers and judges, jury service provides an opportunity to view court procedures from a fresh vantage point. Jurors apparently share one common characteristic: they like to relate their experience. Those who have done so in writing have provided us not only with entertaining reading but also with valuable insights into the jury system in this country, as they offer lawyers advice, evaluate the system, and suggest improvements. This bibliography grew out of material collected by Diana Balio for A View from the Other Side of the Bench by Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson. It is a selection of short articles, rather than book length accounts, by grand and petit jurors, by prospective jurors who waited but did not serve, and by journalists who reported on jurors' experiences. The range of periodicals which published these accounts turned out to be