scholarly journals Embedding explained jury verdicts in the English criminal trial

Legal Studies ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 786-806
Author(s):  
Mark Coen ◽  
Jonathan Doak
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Criminal Trial ◽  
Deliberation Process ◽  
Jury Verdicts ◽  
Fundamental Value

English juries do not provide reasons for their verdicts. This paper argues that transparency is a fundamental value in modern decision making, and that reform is needed to trial by jury so that verdicts are routinely accompanied by explanations. It examines the options that exist to incorporate explained verdicts in the English criminal trial and concludes that accountability and legitimacy would be enhanced through the use of a trained, independent lay facilitator to chair the deliberation process and draft an explained verdict.

The Contemporary American Jury

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 239-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shari Seidman Diamond ◽  
Mary R. Rose
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Distinctive Feature ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Ethnic Representation ◽  
Work In Progress ◽  
Deliberation Process ◽  
Jury Verdicts ◽  
Jury Trials ◽  
Jury Service ◽  
Multiple Obstacles

The contemporary American jury is more inclusive than ever before, although multiple obstacles continue to make racial and ethnic representation a work in progress. Drastic contraction has also occurred: The rate of jury trials is at an all-time low, dampening the signal that jury verdicts provide to the justice system, reducing the opportunity for jury service, and potentially threatening the legitimacy of judgments. At the same time, new areas of jury research have been producing important explanations for how the jury goes about reaching its verdict in response to challenging questions, like how to assess damages. Yet the persistent focus on individual juror judgments as opposed to decision making by the jury as a group leaves unanswered important questions about how jury performance is influenced by a primary distinctive feature of the jury: the deliberation process.

Game Theoretical Approach to Model Decision Making for Merging Maneuvers at Freeway On-Ramps

2017 ◽  
Vol 2623 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyungwon Kang ◽  
Hesham A. Rakha
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Theoretical Approach ◽  
Model Parameters ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Optimization Approach ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Deliberation Process ◽  
Proposed Model ◽  
Game Theoretical Approach ◽  
The Subject

Drivers of merging vehicles decide when to merge by considering surrounding vehicles in adjacent lanes in their deliberation process. Conflicts between drivers of the subject vehicles (i.e., merging vehicles) in an auxiliary lane and lag vehicles in the adjacent lane are typical near freeway on-ramps. This paper models a decision-making process for merging maneuvers that uses a game theoretical approach. The proposed model is based on the noncooperative decision making of two players, that is, drivers of the subject and lag vehicles, without consideration of advanced communication technologies. In the decision-making process, the drivers of the subject vehicles elect to accept gaps, and drivers of lag vehicles either yield or block the action of the subject vehicle. Corresponding payoff functions for two players were formulated to describe their respective maneuvers. To estimate model parameters, a bi-level optimization approach was used. The next generation simulation data set was used for model calibration and validation. The data set defined the moment the game started and was modeled as a continuous sequence of games until a decision is made. The defined merging decision-making model was then validated with an independent data set. The validation results reveal that the proposed model provides considerable prediction accuracy with correct predictions 84% of the time.

scholarly journals Jury Verdicts and Preference Diversity

2000 ◽  
Vol 94 (2) ◽  
pp. 395-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dino Gerardi
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Equilibrium Strategy ◽  
Correct Decision ◽  
Unanimity Rule ◽  
Voting Rule ◽  
Jury Verdicts ◽  
Asymptotically Efficient

I develop a model of decision making in juries when there is uncertainty about jurors' preferences. I provide a characterization of the equilibrium strategy under any voting rule and show that nonunanimous rules are asymptotically efficient. Specifically, large juries make the correct decision with probability close to one. My analysis also demonstrates that under the unanimous rule, large juries almost never convict the defendant. The last result contrasts markedly with the literature and suggests that the unanimity rule can protect the innocent only at the price of acquitting the guilty.

ASSURANCE OF LEGALITY AND VALIDITY OF THE PROCEDURAL DECISIONS MADE BY THE INVESTIGATOR IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDING

2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (71) ◽  
pp. 28
Author(s):  
Marina Sumbarova
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Trial ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Criminal Proceeding ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
Procedural Decisions ◽  
Procedural Instructions

One of participants of criminal trial – the persons directing process, according to the Criminal procedure law (CPL) existing now in Latvia is the investigator. According to point 1 of part 2 of article 29 CPL, it has rights in the order established by the law to make any procedural decision and to make any procedural action or to charge its production to participants of an investigation team or the performer of procedural instructions. In article the author investigates conceptual essence of criminal procedure decisions, the legal characteristic of the resolution of the investigator, decision-making in the form of resolutions on the beginning of criminal trial, refusal to begin criminal trial, and also the resolutions directed on collecting and fixing of proofs in criminal trial and other resolutions. Making procedural decisions is a guarantee of high-quality investigation of criminal trials and observance of the rights of its participants.

scholarly journals Thinking Fast Increases Framing Effects in Risky Decision Making

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 530-543 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Guo ◽  
Jennifer S. Trueblood ◽  
Adele Diederich
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Time Pressure ◽  
Framing Effects ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Dual Process Theory ◽  
Limiting Factor ◽  
Risky Decision Making ◽  
Risky Decision ◽  
Deliberation Process ◽  
Emotional System

Every day, people face snap decisions when time is a limiting factor. In addition, the way a problem is presented can influence people’s choices, which creates what are known as framing effects. In this research, we explored how time pressure interacts with framing effects in risky decision making. Specifically, does time pressure strengthen or weaken framing effects? On one hand, research has suggested that framing effects evolve through the deliberation process, growing larger with time. On the other hand, dual-process theory attributes framing effects to an intuitive, emotional system that responds automatically to stimuli. In our experiments, participants made decisions about gambles framed in terms of either gains or losses, and time pressure was manipulated across blocks. Results showed increased framing effects under time pressure in both hypothetical and incentivized choices, which supports the dual-process hypothesis that these effects arise from a fast, intuitive system.

Half the Guilt

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-109
Author(s):  
Talia Fisher
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
Criminal Trial ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Decision Making Model

Abstract Criminal law conceptualizes guilt and the finding of guilt as purely categorical phenomena. At the end of trial, the defendant is pronounced either “guilty” or “not guilty” of the charges made against her, excluding the possibility of judgment of degree. Judges or juries cannot calibrate findings of guilt to various degrees of epistemic certainty by pronouncing the defendant “probably guilty,” “most certainly guilty,” or “guilty by preponderance of the evidence.” Nor can decision makers qualify the verdict to reflect normative or legal ambiguities. Findings of guilt are construed as asserting factual and legal truths. The penal results of conviction assume similar “all or nothing” properties: punishment can be calibrated, but not with the established probability of guilt. The prevailing decision-making model, with its ‘on-off’ formulation of guilt, is so broadly established that it is considered an axiom— but there is nothing natural or pre-political about it, nor about the derivative distribution of punishment. This Article attempts to expose the hidden potential rooted in the construal of criminal verdicts as judgments of degree, by drawing three hypothetical manifestations of a linear conceptualization of conviction and punishment in the criminal trial and plea-bargaining arena. It also offers a normative assessment of converting criminal verdicts from categorical decisions to continuities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document