THE RATES OF JURY PAY AND ASSEMBLY PAY IN FOURTH-CENTURY ATHENS

During the fourth century, the amount of money Athenians got from the polis for volunteering to sit on a jury and for attending the assembly diverged significantly. Jury pay remained at 3 obols a day, despite inflation, while the pay given for a principal (kyria) assembly eventually rose from 1 obol to 9 obols—outpacing inflation and overcompensating most citizens for their time. What demographic reconstruction of the jury can explain why the real value of jury pay never declined to the point that too few Athenians volunteered? Self-reliant citizens (penêtes) must have dominated the jury pool, and penêtes with young adult children would have volunteered most often. Having an additional source of household labour reduced the opportunity cost of jury service for these Athenians and made their participation more resilient in the face of the declining value of pay. Citizens who faced greater opportunity costs probably participated less over time, meaning that fourth-century juries gradually became less diverse. By contrast, the growth in assembly pay can best be understood in terms of the ‘Lycurgan’ agenda of the 330s and the 320s. Greater pay helped to ensure that the assembly's newly expanded meeting place on the Pnyx was filled to capacity with citizens from all over Attica. The result was a massive spectacle that celebrated a threatened democracy and stimulated the polis economy. Since the courts lacked the same capacity for spectacle, there was no political motivation to pay jurors more.

The Effect of Deliberation on Jurors’ Attitudes toward Jury Service in Criminal Cases

Jury service is one important way that citizens actively involve themselves in the criminal justice system. At a time when criminal justice and legal institutions are suffering from declining levels of public trust, it is crucial to understand the effects of jury service on individuals’ views of the jury system and whether these views vary across different racial groups. This article uses survey data from 248 deliberating and prospective jurors on criminal cases with matched data before and after jury service to examine jurors’ views of jury service. Unlike most research in this area, actual jurors were surveyed both at the beginning and at the end of the jury process to measure changes in attitudes concerning jury participation. Deliberating jurors’ changes in views were compared with a group of prospective jurors not selected for a trial. We found a significant difference between deliberating jurors and prospective jurors concerning their belief that the jury system is the fairest way to decide criminal cases, suggesting that jury service positively affects jurors’ views of the jury system. Racial group membership did not significantly influence change from pretrial to posttrial views, with views of jury service becoming more positive for both white and nonwhite jurors.

Voting and Holding Public Office

Chapter 6 considers the same issue as Chapter 5, except within the context of the right to hold public office. Many suffragists characterized the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment as having secured their political liberty or freedom. Yet, as both Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 explain, that understanding of the meaning and scope of the Nineteenth Amendment was not shared by many state courts. Much as they had used statutory construction to limit the potential impact of the Nineteenth Amendment on women’s eligibility for jury service, many state courts embraced a constricted view of the scope of the Nineteenth Amendment on other political rights beyond voting, like holding elective or appointive office. This ensured the continuation of women’s partialized citizenship for decades after ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment.

Voting and Jury Service

Chapter 5 delves into the state cases, which asked whether voting and jury service for women were coextensive. While most courts saw the Nineteenth Amendment as self-executing in terms of voting, many construed it narrowly in terms of whether its scope encompassed other political rights, beyond voting. The chapter connects the lack of congressional enforcement legislation, pursuant to the Nineteenth Amendment, to this thin conception of its scope. It suggests that the NWP and the NLWV, although they were working in other sites of reform, like state legislatures, were not much in the state courts. And it was in those courts, that there was a possibility judges could have been persuaded to adopt a robust interpretation of the Nineteenth Amendment—one that understood it to extend other political rights to women.

10. The jury

The jury consists of twelve randomly selected members of the public, who decide guilt or innocence in the most serious criminal trials in the Crown Court. This ensures that the general public are represented in the criminal justice system. This chapter explains the rules on eligibility for, and disqualification or excusal from, jury service. It considers issues such as the power of the jury to acquit in defiance of the evidence (‘jury equity’); the confidentiality of jury deliberations and the implications of that for appeals; the ethnic composition of a jury; the rights of both prosecution and defence to challenge jurors; jury vetting; whether juries should be excluded from certain trials, such as those involving serious fraud or where there is evidence of jury ‘tampering’; whether the accused should be able to ‘waive’ their right to jury trial; and the impact of social media on jury trials. It concludes by examining the relative advantages and disadvantages of jury trials.

Public perceptions of felon-juror exclusion: An exploratory study

Despite the pervasiveness of felon-juror exclusion, this is the first study to systematically explore public opinions about the exclusion of convicted felons from voting and jury service. While results from 815 Californians revealed greater support for felon-voters than for felon-jurors, a majority opposed felon-juror exclusion and rejected the rationales for doing so. Findings also revealed stark ideological divides, as conservatives were less likely to support felon-voters or felon-jurors, and were more likely to endorse the justifications for felon-juror exclusion. As states debate legislation permitting felon-juror inclusion, our findings indicate that support for such policies is likely greater than courts and policymakers had previously thought, suggesting that officials might benefit from re-considering whether this form of civic marginalization actually represents the will of the people.

Of “Masculine Tyranny” and the “Women's Jury”: The Gender Politics of Jury Service in Third Republic France

In belle époque France, criminal juries were criticized as too tolerant of crime and too lenient to effectively punish criminals. While the French institution of the jury was under attack by magistrates and other elites, mixed sex juries provided an alternative model. Jury reformers advocated the introduction of mixed-sex criminal juries in France in order to render better verdicts and reduce crime, especially in the areas of infanticide and abortion. The French National Assembly debates over proposed legislation, however, stalled over political concerns with women's truncated citizenship rights. Historical analysis of the types of arguments deployed in this jury reform debate (including archival documents, parliamentary records, and press sources) reveals that reform proponents argued that gender difference-especially in terms of morality and psychology-justified women's admission to juries, particularly in cases of infanticide and abortion. The operation of an unofficial “women's jury” (jury féminin) between 1905 and 1910 in Paris demonstrated women's judicial decision-making capacity. Analysis of this citizens' jury documents the development of a feminist critique of the legal treatment of domestic violence, reproductive freedom, and marriage law publicized in the early twentieth century. This research contribution posits grounds for the re-periodization of feminist legal history as viewed through this case study of women's claims to jury service in Third Republic France.