Parkinson and Mansbridge, eds.: Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale

Professor Dr. John Parkinson of the University of Warwick Faculty of Politics and International Studies, and Professor Dr. Jane J. Mansbridge of the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government, have co-edited Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale (Cambridge University Press, 2012).

Here is the publisher’s description of the book:

‘Deliberative democracy’ is often dismissed as a set of small-scale, academic experiments. This volume seeks to demonstrate how the deliberative ideal can work as a theory of democracy on a larger scale. It provides a new way of thinking about democratic engagement across the spectrum of political action, from towns and villages to nation states, and from local networks to transnational, even global systems. Written by a team of the world’s leading deliberative theorists, Deliberative Systems explains the principles of this new approach, which seeks ways of ensuring that a division of deliberative labour in a system nonetheless meets both deliberative and democratic norms. Rather than simply elaborating the theory, the contributors examine the problems of implementation in a real world of competing norms, competing institutions and competing powerful interests. [...]

Here is the table of contents:

1. A systemic approach to deliberative democracy / Jane Mansbridge, James Bohman, Simone Chambers, Thomas Christiano, Archon Fung, John Parkinson, Dennis F. Thompson and Mark E. Warren
2. Rational deliberation among experts and citizens / Thomas Christiano
3. Deliberation and mass democracy / Simone Chambers
4. Representation in the deliberative system / James Bohman
5. Two trust-based uses of minipublics in democratic systems / Michael K. MacKenzie and Mark E. Warren
6. On the embeddedness of deliberative systems: why elitist innovations matter more / Yannis Papadopoulos
7. Democratizing deliberative systems / John Parkinson

The book includes discussion of democratic deliberation about legal matters, including citizens’ participation in jury deliberations, constitutional drafting, the legislative process, and ballot measures, including by such processes as the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review.

Gastil on the Sandusky Jury and Democracy

Professor Dr. John Gastil of the Penn State University Department of Communication Arts and Sciences has posted A trial close to home, and a jury weighing evidence, at Jury and Democracy.

In this post, Professor Gastil comments on several aspects of the jury deliberation in the criminal trial of Jerry Sandusky.

First, Professor Gastil observes that the Sandusky jury appears to have been “evidence-driven” rather than “verdict-driven.” He writes:

The Sandusky jury appeared to consider the evidence carefully. They took a full 20 hours to deliberate, and they reviewed specific testimony, presumably to discuss points of uncertainty or disagreement.

In addition, Professor Gastil notes that the large number of counts considered by the jury will likely increase the civic impact of the jurors’ deliberative experience. He writes:

Our research [reported in the book The Jury and Democracy (Oxford University Press, 2010)] found that the more charges in a criminal case, the larger the impact of deliberation on one’s future participation in public life (e.g., voting). The effect appeared to come from the sheer deliberative load–the number of separate judgments you had to make, each time holding a person’s fate–often even their freedom–in your hands.

Professor Gastil further discusses the significance of the apparently successful sequestration of the jury and the tension between the jury’s obligations to apply the legal standard of culpability and the public’s perceptions of culpability.

For more information, please see the complete post.

Legal Informatics and Legal Communication Papers at ICLS 2012

Several papers on legal informatics or legal communication were presented at ICLS 2012: International Conference on Law and Society, held 5-8 June 2012 in Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.

Below are the titles, and links to abstracts, of the legal informatics or legal communication papers — that I’ve been able to identify — that were presented at the conference. If you know of others, please feel free to identify them in the comments.

• Philip Adey (University of Sydney): Expert Psychiatric Evidence in Civil Litigation Involving Allegations of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: The Australian Experience
• Afra Afsharipour (University of California, Davis): Deal Technology
• Seantel A. Anais (Carleton University): Commissioning Credibility: Texts, Testimony, and Truth in Commissions of Inquiry
• Maria Ines Bergoglio (Universidad Nacional de Córdoba): Legitimacy of the Judicial System and Lay Participation in Judicial Decision-Making Processes in Córdoba, Argentina
• Susan Berk-Seligson and Mitchell A. Seligson (Vanderbilt University): The Role of the Police in Crime-Prevention in Central America
• Susan L. Brooks (Drexel University) and David M. Boulding (Private Practice): Using Communication Models to Teach Relational Competencies in Law School
• Christopher Brown (University of Arkansas, Monticello): Death by Any Other Name: Definitionalism’s Impact on America’s Response to Genocide
• Iokepa Casumbal-Salazar (University of Hawaii, Manoa): Monumental Science in Hawaiʻi: U.S. Imperialism, Western Astronomy, and Kanaka Maoli Resistance to Telescopes atop Mauna a Wākea
• Marie Comiskey (University of Michigan): Testing the Comprehensibility of Canadian Jury Instructions and the Efficacy of 3 Comprehension Aids
• Shari S. Diamond, Chair (Northwestern U/American Bar Foundation); Participants: Mei-Tong Chen (Judicial Yuan, Taiwan), Edmundo S. Hendler (University of Buenos Aires), Jae-Hyup Lee (Seoul National University), Richard O. Lempert (University of Michigan), Kwangbai Park (Chungbuk National University), Christoph Rennig (Frankfurt High Court of Appeals): Roundtable–The Role of Professionals in Lay Tribunals
• Soren Frederiksen (York University): Has the Supreme Court’s Philosophy of Science Made It to Canada?
• Masahiro Fujita (Kansai University): Informational Justice in Jury Research: Reframing Prior Jury Researches
• Jeremy Gans (University of Melbourne): Verbal Equivalents to Likelihood Ratios: Limited Probative Value, Strong Prejudicial Effect, Inconclusive Admissibility, Immoderate Usage
• Claire M Germain (University of Florida): Recent Developments in the French Criminal Jury
• Toby S Goldbach (Cornell University): Lay Participation in the Criminal Trial: First Nations Sentencing Circles and Law Reform in Canada
• Jasmine B. Gonzales Rose (University of Pittsburgh): Juror Language Accommodation in Theory and Praxis
• Mel Greenlee (California Appellate Project): Faretta, Marsden, and the Pro-Se Motion: Legal Language on the Skids
• Miranda C. Hallett (Otterbein University) and Michael Jones-Correa (Cornell University): Borders of the Public: Framing the Inclusion and Exclusion of Undocumented Migrants
• Paula Hannaford-Agor (National Center for State Courts), Nicole L. Waters (National Center for State Courts): Juror and Jury Use of New Media: A Baseline Exploration
• Valerie P. Hans (Cornell University): The Jury in Russia: Research and Reform
• Emma M. Henderson (La Trobe University): The Empty Gesture: Jury Directions and the Meaning of Consent in Rape Trials in Victoria, Australia
• Livia Holden (Lahore University of Management Sciences): Non-State Law and Governance in South Asia: Changing Discourse
• Ruth Horowitz (New York University): Experts and Deliberative Democracy
• Syugo Hotta (Meiji University): Linguistic Justice: A Linguistic Analysis of Deliberation
• Takayuki Ii (Hirosaki University): A Gap Before and After Saiban-in Service
• John D Jackson (University College, Dublin) and Nikolai Kovalev (Wilfrid Laurier University): Lay Adjudication in Europe: New Developments
• Natália P Junior (IESP / UERJ): Participatory and Deliberative Democracy from Local to Global: The Example of Women’s Conferences as New Spaces for Mobilization and Proposed Public Policies on Gender in Brazil
• Shiro Kashimura (Kobe University): Telling a Code of Law: Interactive Grounds and Contingencies of Giving Legal Advice in Japan
• Zeynep U. Kasli (University of Washington, Seattle): Who Frames the Rights-Talk and how? Immigrant Associations and Undocumented Immigrants
• Richard Kemp and Kristy Martire (University of New South Wales): A Framework for Testing the Validity of Forensic Science Evidence
• Yumiko Kita (University of Sussex): Intentions and the Reality of the Lay Adjudication in Criminal Trials: Indications from the Introduction of the Japanese Citizen Judge System (Saiban-in Seido) in Terms of a Comparative Criminal Justice Study
• Takanori Kitamura (Tokai University): An Interactional Analysis of Legal Consultations between Lawyers and Clients in Japan
• Danfeng S.V. Koon (University of California, Berkeley): Metaphors and Meaning: The Role of Metaphors in Shaping Organizational Responses to Law
• Janny Leung (University of Hong Kong): The Judge as a Godfather, Scholar, Educator, and Scolding Parent: Judicial Discourse in Cantonese Courtrooms in Hong Kong
• Sean Mallin (University of California, Irvine): Finding Blight: Code Enforcement and “Responsible” Ownership in Post-Katrina New Orleans
• Kristy Martire, Richard Kemp, Ben R. Newell, and Ian Watkins (University of New South Wales): The Correspondence between Expert Intentions and Juror Interpretations: A Likely Story?
• Lisa McElroy (Drexel University): Cameras at the Supreme Court: A Rhetorical Analysis
• Giorgi Meladze (Free University of Tbilisi): Georgian Jury System
• Caren Morrison (Georgia State University): Jurors Under Scrutiny: The Rise of Online Intrusion
• Lisa Mortimer (University of Melbourne): Access to Justice in Timor-Leste: The Role of Local and Non-Local Languages in Timor-Leste’s Formal and Informal Justice Systems
• Margaret van Naerssen (Immaculata University): Miranda Rights: Selected Linguistic Correlates of “Knowingly” and “Intelligently”
• Evelyn Nava-Fischer (Cardiff University): The Role of Regulatory Framings in the Setting and Reception of Global Standards: The Discursive Constitution of International Standards Disputes and of Agri-Food Regulatory Models in India
• Takeshi Nishimura (Shimada & Nishimura Law Office): Transparency of Japanese Criminal Justice System after Saiban-in System Was Implemented
• Karen Petroski (Saint Louis University): Texts, Not Testimony: Rethinking the Legal Use of Non-Legal Expertise
• Anastasia Powell, Nicola Henry, Emma M Henderson, Kirsty Duncanson (La Trobe University) and Asher Flynn (Monash University): The Meanings of “Sex” and “Consent”: History, Discourse, and Impact of Rape Law Reform in Victoria (Australia)
• Richard Powell (Nihon University): Motivations For and Implications Of Changing the Language of the Law: Lessons from Malaysia
• Jeanne M. Powers (Arizona State University): Social Science Research and Judicial Decision Making in School Finance Litigation
• Ming Qi (Jilin University): The People’s Jurors in Chinese Judicial System: Mechanisms and Policies
• John N. Robinson (Northwestern University): Disputing Dispersal: Frames, Repertoires, and Support Structures in Anti-HOPE VI Legal Campaigns
• William Rose (Albion College): Occasional Legislators: Law, Politics, and the Discourse of Judging
• Meredith Rossner (University of Western Sydney): Common Narrative and Community Cohesion: Toward a Micro-Level Theory of Deliberative Dynamics
• Jenny Roth (Lakehead University) and Monica Flegel (Lakehead University): It’s Like Rape: Exploring Social Understandings of Copyright in Debates between Fans and Creative Producers
• Jessica Salerno (U of Illinois, Chicago/American Bar Foundation): Emotion and Jury Deliberation: Does Expressing Emotion Make Stereotyped Holdout Jurors More or Less Persuasive?
• Joseph Sanders (University of Houston): Milward v. Acuity Specialty Products Group: Constructing and Deconstructing Science in the Courtroom
• Tatsuya Sato (Ritsumeikan University): 3D Visualization System for Lay Judges to Understand Legal Disputes on Trial
• Michael J. Shapiro (University of Hawaii): War Crimes and the Justice Dispositif
• Brian G. Slocum (University of the Pacific): Linguistics and Authorial Intent
• Ciara Staunton (National University of Ireland, Galway): Ethics, Embryonic Stem Cell Research, and Democratic Deliberation
• David Tait (University of Western Sydney): Racial Coding of Railway Stations: Jury Deliberation about the Meaning of Place in a Mock Terrorism Trial
• Anthea Fay Vogl (University of Technology, Sydney): Telling Stories from Start to Finish: Exploring the Demand for Narrative in Refugee Testimony
• Kosuke Wakabayashi (Ritsumeikan University): The Effects of the Judicial Instruction which Includes Argument for Evidence Law Regarding Pre-Trial Publicity Information
• Natalie Wallace and Valerie P. Hans (Cornell University): Is There a Lawyer in the “House”? The Portrayal of Medical Negligence in “House, M.D.”
• Mark E. Walters (University of California, San Diego): Legal-Cultural Formations from High Literacy to Secondary Orality
• Zhuoyu Wang (Southwest University of Finance and Economics of China): An Empirical Research on China’s Recent Reforms of Its Mixed Tribunal System
• Matthew J. Wilson (University of Wyoming): Japan’s Evolving Lay Judge System: Room for Improvement or Even Expansion?
• Toru Yamada (Cornell University): A Conceptual Administrative Manual: Discursive Formations in Japan’s Heritage Nomination Process

Gastil et al. Win NCA Book Award for The Jury and Democracy

Professor Dr. John Gastil of the Penn State University Department of Communication Arts and Sciences; Dr. E. Pierre Deess of the New Jersey Institute of Technology; Dean Philip J. Weiser of the University of Colorado School of Law; and Cindy Simmons, Esq., M.A., of the Penn State University College of Communications, have been awarded the National Communication Association Group Communication Division Ernest Bormann Research Award for the Outstanding Book for 2011, for The Jury and Democracy: How Jury Deliberation Promotes Civic Engagement and Political Participation (Oxford University Press, 2010).

Gastil et al. on The Jury and Democracy

Professor Dr. John Gastil of the University of Washington Department of Communication; Dr. E. Pierre Deess of the New Jersey Institute of Technology; Professor Philip J. Weiser of the University of Colorado School of Law; and Cindy Simmons, Esq., M.A., of the University of Washington Department of Communication, have published The Jury and Democracy: How Jury Deliberation Promotes Civic Engagement and Political Participation (2010). Here is a summary:

Alexis de Tocqueville, John Stuart Mill, and the U.S. Supreme Court have all alleged that jury service promotes civic and political engagement, yet none could prove it. Finally, The Jury and Democracy provides compelling systematic evidence to support this view.

Drawing from in-depth interviews, thousands of juror surveys, and court and voting records from across the United States, the authors show that serving on a jury can trigger changes in how citizens view themselves, their peers, and their government–and can even significantly increase electoral turnout among infrequent voters. Jury service also sparks long-term shifts in media use, political action, and community involvement.

In an era when involved Americans are searching for ways to inspire their fellow citizens, The Jury and Democracy offers a plausible and realistic path for turning passive spectators into active political participants.

The book includes reports of research produced by The Jury and Democracy Project, based at the University of Washington.

Thomas, Are Juries Fair?

Professor Cheryl Thomas of the University College London Faculty of Laws presented a paper entitled Are Juries Fair?, at Jury Research Symposium 2010, held 25-26 March 2010 in Glasgow, Scotland, UK.

Click here for the full text of the paper: Cheryl Thomas, Are Juries Fair? (February 2010) (Ministry of Justice Research Series 1/10).

Here is the abstract:

This research asks: How fair is the jury decision‐making process? It explores a number of aspects of jury fairness for the first time in this country, and asks specifically:

• Do all‐White juries discriminate against BME defendants?
• Do jurors racially stereotype defendants?
• Do juries at certain courts rarely convict?
• Do juries rarely convict on certain offences?
• Do jurors understand legal directions?
• Do jurors know what to do about improper conduct in the jury room?
• Are jurors aware of media coverage of their cases?
• How is the internet affecting jury trials?

The research used a multi‐method approach to examine these issues:

• case simulation with real juries at Crown Courts (involving 797 jurors on 68 juries);
• large‐scale analysis of all actual jury verdicts in 2006–08 (over 68,000 verdicts);
• post‐verdict survey of jurors (668 jurors in 62 cases).

The study found little evidence that juries are not fair. However, it identifies several areas where the criminal justice system should better assist jurors in performing this vital role. The study also demonstrates that section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 does not prevent comprehensive research about how juries reach their verdicts and that research from other jurisdictions should not be relied upon to understand juries in this country.

[NOTE: Updated 22 March 2012 to provide a correct URL for the paper.]

Smith on Identifying and Measuring Juror Bias About Forensic Science Evidence

Lisa L. Smith, BSc., MSc., MFSSoc., of the University of Leicester School of Psychology presented a paper entitled Identifying and Measuring Juror Bias About Forensic Science Evidence, at Jury Research Symposium 2010, held 25-26 March 2010 in Glasgow, Scotland, UK.

Click here for the slides accompanying the paper.

Here is the abstract:

This series of mock jury studies has investigated the process of juror decision making about the probative value of different types of forensic evidence (e.g. DNA, fingerprints, etc.). The findings suggest that there is widespread agreement among mock jurors about the usefulness of forensic evidence that has very high probative value[;] however evidence of a weak or moderate standard produces significant disagreement among jurors regarding its usefulness in determining the guilt of a defendant. An Interactionist model of jury decision making would predict that in cases where evidence is weak or ambiguous individual jurors’ pre‐trial beliefs and opinions will have a greater impact on the decision making process. The Forensic Evidence Evaluation Bias Scale (FEEBS) was developed to determine whether a pre‐trial bias related to perceptions of forensic evidence could be measured, and the scale’s ability to predict judgments about evidence and verdicts was investigated. A factor analysis of the FEEBS revealed that participants could be conceptualised as having either a pro‐prosecution or pro‐defence bias concerning forensic evidence. This presentation will discuss these findings in relation to the recent attention given to anecdotal reports of a ‘CSI Effect’ as well as the implications that this bias has on verdict decisions both within the current research and in the courtroom.

For the full text of the paper, please contact the author.

Rotenberg on A Trust in Legal Professionals Scale: Implications for Jury Functioning

Professor Kenneth J. Rotenberg of Keele University School of Psychology presented a paper entitled A Trust in Legal Professionals Scale: Implications for Jury Functioning, at Jury Research Symposium 2010, held 25-26 March 2010 in Glasgow, Scotland, UK.

Click here for the slides accompanying the paper.

[Please note that in this research, "legal professionals" is defined to include juries.]

Here is the abstract:

The purpose of the research was to develop a Trust in Legal Professionals Scale and examine its relation to jury functioning. One hundred and 36 (80 females and 56 males) undergraduates and 199 (34 females and 165 males) Royal Air Force recruits in Study 1 completed the 9‐item Trust in Legal Professionals scale (TLPS), Rotter’s (1967) Interpersonal Trust Scale (RITS), and cooperating with legal professionals scale (CLPS). In Study 2, 72 undergraduates (48 females and 25 males) completed the TLPS and participated as jurors in mock trials. As expected, Study 1 showed that the TLPS was composed of the three factors (honesty, emotional, and reliability) and was positively correlated with RITS and with CLPS independently. In Study 2, it was found that gender moderated the relation between the TLPS jury subscale and the participants’ perceptions of fairness, perceived confidence and dominance of jury deliberations. Males who held high trust beliefs in juries tended to dominate jury deliberations whereas females who held high trust beliefs in juries tended to show dependency in jury deliberations The TLPS demonstrated reliability and validity and the TLPS jury subscale was associated with jury functioning.

For the full text of the paper, please contact the author.

Ellison & Munro on Examining Juror’s Deliberative Processes in a Mock Rape Trial

Dr. Louise Ellison of the University of Leeds School of Law and Professor Vanessa Munro of the University of Nottingham School of Law presented a paper entitled Examining Juror’s Deliberative Processes in a Mock Rape Trial, at Jury Research Symposium 2010, held 25-26 March 2010 in Glasgow, Scotland, UK. Here is the abstract:

Reforms under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 notwithstanding, the jury continues to play a pivotal role in determining criminal liability in rape trials. Research with ‘real’ juries is prohibited, and previous simulation studies often lack verisimilitude ‐ either by relying on minimalist stimuli, neglecting the appropriate legal tests, or omitting any collective discursive component. Without trivialising the complexities involved in extrapolating from the experimental to the ‘real’ trial context, this paper outlines the findings of a mock jury study in which members of the public were asked to deliberate towards a unanimous verdict, having observed an abbreviated rape trial reconstruction, which was enacted in real‐time by actors and barristers, with instruction provided in line with the JSB Specimen Direction. It will reflect on the structural processes (including the presence of a foreperson, inter‐personal dynamics, and the deployment of various persuasive strategies) that framed the tone and direction of collective discussion. In so doing, it generates further insight into what may go on behind the closed doors of the jury room in rape cases, and sheds light on the ways in which differently composed juries faced with the same stimulus may not only reach divergent verdicts but may embark upon radically different routes to reach the same destination.

For the full text of the paper, please contact the authors.

Sundby on War and Peace in the Jury Room: How Capital Juries Reach Unanimity

Professor Scott E. Sundby of the Washington and Lee University School of Law has posted War and Peace in the Jury Room: How Capital Juries Reach Unanimity, forthcoming in 62 Hastings Law Journal (2010). Here is the abstract:

Using data from the Capital Jury Project, this article takes a close look inside the jury room at the process by which capital juries reach a unanimous verdict at the penalty phase. The process proves to be a fascinating one. The article first examines the relationship between first ballot voting patterns and the ultimate sentence, and then explores the dynamics of group interaction in achieving unanimity. In particular, by using the jurors’ own narratives, the piece delves into the psychological process and arguments through which the majority jurors persuade the holdouts to change their votes. This process is especially intriguing because individual juries do not, of course, have any training in how to deliberate and reach unanimity, and yet they are strikingly similar from case-to-case in how they convert holdouts to the majority position (the striking differences are between the dynamics of juries that reach a verdict of death and those that return a sentence of life without parole). Using the closing argument in the death penalty case of Susan Smith (the mother who had done the unthinkable, killing her two children by driving them into a lake and then trying to cast blame on a mysterious black man), the article concludes by examining how a closing argument might address many of the pressures that affect holdouts.

HT @JuryVox.