Book Review: James M. Binnall, Twenty Million Angry Men: The Case for Including Convicted Felons in Our Jury System

In his book, Twenty Million Angry Men: The Case for Including Convicted Felons in Our Jury System, James Binnall discusses whether or not there is sound empirical evidence that proves that ex-convicts should be barred from participating in jury duty. Currently, most states in the United States permanently forbid those with a felony conviction from serving as a juror while some states allow convicted felons to serve only after their entire sentence (including parole and probation) is completed; Maine is the only state that has no restrictions whatsoever.

Being Consistent Matters: Experimental Evidence on the Effect of Rule Consistency on Citizen Red Tape

A growing stream of research in public administration is concerned with how red tape and administrative burden affects citizens. Drawing on the procedural fairness literature, we argue that the consistent application of rules reduces perceived red tape. We also hypothesize that red tape perceptions are affected by outcome favorability and that an interaction effect exists between consistency and outcome favorability. Our reasoning is tested with a survey experiment in the context of a federal jury duty summons procedure, and administered to a sample of U.S. citizens through TurkPrime. The statistical results support our hypotheses; perceived red tape is lower if rules are applied consistently and if citizens receive a favorable outcome. We also find that consistently applying a procedure reduces perceived red tape further when citizens receive a favorable outcome. The implications of these findings for research and practice are discussed.

What makes a market transaction morally repugnant?

For many people, it is morally impermissible to put kidneys, jury duty exemptions, or permits for having children on the free market. All of these are examples of repugnant transactions—market transactions that third parties want to prevent. In two studies (N = 1,554), using respondents’ judgements of 51 different market transactions across 21 characteristics, we show that repugnance can be characterized along five higher-order dimensions: moral outrage, need for regulation, incommensurability, exploitation, and unknown risk. Repugnance toward the 51 market transactions was highly consistent across two samples. Our results can help identify mismatches between public sentiments and current regulations (selling carbon emissions is currently legal but considered repugnant), anticipate responses to novel markets that have not been publicly scrutinized (often arising from technological advances, such as markets for “designer babies”), and help design less repugnant markets (e.g., by making the risks involved in a transaction known to sellers).

The Case for Citizen Duty

This article defends a novel type of institutionalized mass deliberation: Citizen Duty. Citizen Duty would legally require every citizen to engage in one day of diverse, moderated political deliberation prior to major elections. This deliberation would realize a variety of benefits, including wiser electoral decisions and a more respectful electoral process, while avoiding the dangers of citizen deliberation. A comparison with jury duty and with non-deliberative alternatives suggests that Citizen Duty’s substantial economic and liberty costs are justified. Finally, an examination of citizen attitudes towards politics and deliberation suggests that Citizen Duty is not as quixotic as it first appears.

Beliefs about suspect alibis: A survey of lay people in the United Kingdom, Israel, and Sweden

During police interviews, innocent suspects may provide unconvincing alibis due to impaired memory processes or guilt-presumptive behaviour on behalf of the interviewer. Consequently, innocent suspects may be prosecuted and tried in court, where lay people who serve jury duty will assess their alibi’s credibility. To examine lay people’s beliefs and knowledge regarding suspect alibis, and specifically about such factors that may hamper innocent suspects’ ability to provide convincing alibis, we administered an eight-question questionnaire across the United Kingdom ( n = 96), Israel ( n = 124), and Sweden ( n = 123). Participants did not tend to believe that innocent suspects’ alibis might inadvertently include incorrect details, but acknowledged that impaired memory processes may cause this. Additionally, most participants believed that a presumption of guilt can affect how interviewers interview suspects. The findings suggest that lay people who may serve jury duty hold some mistaken beliefs regarding alibi provision by suspects.

How Does Jury Service Affect 21st-Century Jurors?

The 21st century adds unique challenges to the juror experience. Jurors are now exposed to, and often expect, certain technologies during jury duty. This chapter addresses how advances in technology can exacerbate juror stress or increase juror satisfaction. A juror’s role has not changed drastically over time, but jurors are now exposed to more complex trials and evidence, have easy access to the Internet, and are exposed to crime television in popular culture; all of these can affect the juror experience. Often, technology can exacerbate stress. For instance, some jurors are exposed to advanced methods of presenting gruesome evidence. Alternatively, technology can enhance well-being. For instance, online information and check-in can reduce the uncertainty and inconvenience of serving. Empirical research on how 21st-century technology influences jurors’ stress and well-being is lacking. Therefore, this chapter issues a call to action for researchers to further investigate the juror experience.