Abstract: The conventional explanation for the pressure for jury reformlies in the increasing belief that the typical jury is incapable of making the difficult decisions called for in many trials. This explanation assumes first, that the “purpose” of juries is to reach accurate verdicts for the litigants and for society, and second, that juries are failing at the task. Both assumptions are misplaced. The “purpose” of the jury system is far more involved than simply efficient decision-making. Moreover, empirical evidence suggests that juries are at least as capable as judges in reaching “accurate” decisions. This empirical evidence strongly suggests that societal distrust of juries cannot be adequately explained by the shortcomings of our jurors. This Article will identify an alternative source for our dissatisfaction with the jury system and investigate the implications of this phenomenon for the current jury reform discussion. This explanation is that dissatisfaction with juries is an outgrowth of the increased diversity in our society and among our jurors--not merely race and gender diversity, but social and economic diversity as well. The modern perception of the jury is a manifestation of this dynamic. As the diversity of our society and its jurors has increased to the point that litigants can expect jurors unlike themselves, the pressure has risen to restrict the power of juries.
Publication Year: 1996
Publication Date: 1996-01-01
Language: en
Type: article
Indexed In: ['crossref']
Access and Citation
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot