On the “Mockness” of Mock Juries: Real versus Mock Juries as Conversational Forms
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-4409.2019.08.03Keywords:
Juries, deliberation, ethnomethodology, discourse.Abstract
This paper is an analysis of real versus simulated, or “mock,” juries. It is specifically focused on similarities and differences between the two forms of group-based deliberation with respect to the content and organization of deliberative talk. Via analysis of transcript from six deliberations—two real and four mock—the value of mock juries as an investigative tool is assessed based not on the relationship between “input” variables, such as the nature of the case, the sociodemographic or sociometric nature of the jurors themselves, or wording of the juries’ decision rules, and the “output” variable of the jury’s decision, but rather based on the internal nature of jurors’ discourse. This is a radically different focus from traditional studies comprising mock juries, one enabled by use of real deliberations for comparative evaluation.
References
Bray, Struckman-Johnson, C., M.D Osborne, J.B. McFarlane, and J. Scott. 1978. “The Effects of Defendant Status on the Decisions of Student and Community Juries.” Social Psychology 41(3):256-260.https://doi.org/10.2307/3033562 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3033562
Devine, D. 2012. Jury Decision Making: The State of the Science. New York: New York University Press.
Fox, P., T. Wingrove and C. Pfeifer. 2011. A Comparison of Students' and Jury Panelists' Decision‐making in Split Recovery Cases. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 29(3):358-375.https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.968 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.968
Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gastil, J., E. P. Deess, P. Weiser, and C. Simmons. 2010. The Jury and Democracy: How Jury Deliberation Promotes Civic Engagement and Political Participation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hales, H., Davison, S., Misch, P., and Taylor, P. J. 2003. Young Male Prisoners in a Young Offender Institution: Their Experience of Suicide Attempts by Others. Journal of Adolescence, 26(4), 667–685.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-1971(03)00063-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-1971(03)00063-0
Heritage, J. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press
Kalven, H. and H. Zeisel. 1966. The American Jury. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/e438152008-191
Losh, C., A. Wasserman, and M. Wasserman. 2000. “Reluctant Jurors: What Summons Responses Reveal about Jury Duty Attitudes.” Judicature 83:304-310.
MacCoun, R. 1989. “Experimental Research on Jury Decision-Making.” Science 244(6):1046-1050.https://doi.org/10.1126/science.244.4908.1046 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.244.4908.1046
Manzo, J. 1993. "Jurors' Narratives of Personal Experience in Deliberation Talk." Text 13(3):267-290.https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1993.13.2.267 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1993.13.2.267
Manzo, J. 1994. "'You Wouldn't Take a Seven-Year-Old and Ask Him All These Questions': Jurors' Use of Practical Reasoning in Supporting their Arguments." Law and Social Inquiry 19(5):639-663.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.1994.tb00776.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.1994.tb00776.x
Manzo, J. 1996. "Taking Turns and Taking Sides: Opening Scenes from Two Jury Deliberations." Social Psychology Quarterly 59(2):107-125.https://doi.org/10.2307/2787046 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2787046
Maynard, D. and J. Manzo. 1993. "On the Sociology of Justice: Theoretical Notes from an Actual Jury Deliberation." Sociological Theory 11(2):171-193.https://doi.org/10.2307/202141 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/202141
Roberts, J. and M. Hough, 2009. Public Opinion and the Jury: An International Literature Review. London, UK: Ministry of Justice Research Series.
Sacks, H. 1987 (1973). “Notes on Methodology.” In Structures of Social Action, ed. J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage, pp. 21-26. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, H., E. Schegloff and G. Jefferson. 1978. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn Taking for Conversation.” In Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, ed. J. Schenkein, pp. 7-56. New York: Academic Press.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50008-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50008-2
Wiener, R., D. Krauss and J. Lieberman 2011. “Mock Jury Research: Where Do We Go from Here?” Behavioral Sciences and the Law 29(3):467-479.https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.989 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.989
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2019 International Journal of Criminology and Sociology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Policy for Journals/Articles with Open Access
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post links to their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work
Policy for Journals / Manuscript with Paid Access
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Publisher retain copyright .
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post links to their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work .
