IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v11y2014i4p697-717.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deliberative Democracy and the American Civil Jury

Author

Listed:
  • Valerie P. Hans
  • John Gastil
  • Traci Feller

Abstract

Civil jury service should be a potent form of deliberative democracy, creating greater civic engagement. However, a 2010 seven‐state study of jury service and voting records found no overall boost in civic engagement following service on civil juries, whereas jurors who served on criminal cases did show increased civic engagement following their jury service. This article reports a project that augments the civil jury data set with information about jury decision rule, jury size, defendant identity, and case type and examines whether specific types of civil jury service influence postservice voting. Taking into account preservice voting records, jurors who serve on a civil jury that is required to reach unanimity or a civil jury of 12 are significantly more likely to vote after their service. Jurors who decide cases with organizational, as opposed to individual, defendants likewise show a boost in voting behavior, as do jurors deciding contract or nonautomotive torts cases compared to automotive torts. Limitations and implications of these findings for deliberative democracy theory and jury practice are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Valerie P. Hans & John Gastil & Traci Feller, 2014. "Deliberative Democracy and the American Civil Jury," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 697-717, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:11:y:2014:i:4:p:697-717
    DOI: 10.1111/jels.12053
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12053
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jels.12053?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert E. Goodin & Simon J. Niemeyer, 2003. "When Does Deliberation Begin? Internal Reflection versus Public Discussion in Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 51(4), pages 627-649, December.
    2. Robert E. Goodin & Simon J. Niemeyer, 2003. "When Does Deliberation Begin? Internal Reflection versus Public Discussion in Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 51, pages 627-649, December.
    3. Thomas H. Cohen, 2008. "General Civil Jury Trial Litigation in State and Federal Courts: A Statistical Portrait," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(3), pages 593-617, September.
    4. Alan Gerber & Donald Green & Ron Shachar, 2003. "Voting may be habit forming: Evidence from a randomized field experiment," Natural Field Experiments 00251, The Field Experiments Website.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michael Haus & David Sweeting, 2006. "Local Democracy and Political Leadership: Drawing a Map," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 54(2), pages 267-288, June.
    2. Joanna Sleigh & Shannon Hubbs & Alessandro Blasimme & Effy Vayena, 2024. "Can digital tools foster ethical deliberation?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-10, December.
    3. Ben B Davies & Kirsty Blackstock & Felix Rauschmayer, 2005. "‘Recruitment’, ‘Composition’, and ‘Mandate’ Issues in Deliberative Processes: Should we Focus on Arguments Rather than Individuals?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 23(4), pages 599-615, August.
    4. Jennifer Garard & Larissa Koch & Martin Kowarsch, 2018. "Elements of success in multi-stakeholder deliberation platforms," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-16, December.
    5. Andrew G.H. Thompson & Oliver Escobar & Jennifer J. Roberts & Stephen Elstub & Niccole M. Pamphilis, 2021. "The Importance of Context and the Effect of Information and Deliberation on Opinion Change Regarding Environmental Issues in Citizens’ Juries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-21, September.
    6. Andrés Rolando Ciro Gómez, 2020. "El derecho fundamental a deliberar : análisis de la moralidad política de su privación a los miembros de la Fuerza Pública en Colombia," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, number 1187, October.
    7. Mathew Humphrey, 2006. "Democratic Legitimacy, Public Justification and Environmental Direct Action," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 54(2), pages 310-327, June.
    8. Alex Y Lo & Kim S Alexander & Wendy Proctor & Anthony Ryan, 2013. "Reciprocity as Deliberative Capacity: Lessons from a Citizen's Deliberation on Carbon Pricing Mechanisms in Australia," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 31(3), pages 444-459, June.
    9. Liu, Shuang & Hurley, Michael & Lowell, Kim E. & Siddique, Abu-Baker M. & Diggle, Art & Cook, David C., 2011. "An integrated decision-support approach in prioritizing risks of non-indigenous species in the face of high uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1924-1930, September.
    10. Lisette Beek & Niek Mouter & Peter Pelzer & Maarten Hajer & Detlef Vuuren, 2024. "Experts and expertise in practices of citizen engagement in climate policy: a comparative analysis of two contrasting cases," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 177(1), pages 1-22, January.
    11. Alfred Moore, 2010. "Public Bioethics and Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(4), pages 715-730, October.
    12. Jonathan Benson, 2019. "Deliberative democracy and the problem of tacit knowledge," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 18(1), pages 76-97, February.
    13. Damien French & Michael Laver, 2009. "Participation Bias, Durable Opinion Shifts and Sabotage through Withdrawal in Citizens' Juries," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 57(2), pages 422-450, June.
    14. Jennifer J. Roberts & Ruth Lightbody & Ragne Low & Stephen Elstub, 2020. "Experts and evidence in deliberation: scrutinising the role of witnesses and evidence in mini-publics, a case study," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(1), pages 3-32, March.
    15. Shane Doheny & Claire O'Neill, 2010. "Becoming Deliberative Citizens: The Moral Learning Process of the Citizen Juror," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(4), pages 630-648, October.
    16. León, Gianmarco, 2017. "Turnout, political preferences and information: Experimental evidence from Peru," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 56-71.
    17. Robert A. Jackson & Matthew Pietryka, 2022. "The influence of becoming a parent on political participation in the United States," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(3), pages 565-580, May.
    18. Yuko Mori & Takashi Kurosaki, 2011. "Does Political Reservation Affect Voting Behavior? Empirical Evidence from India," Global COE Hi-Stat Discussion Paper Series gd11-205, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    19. Alberto Chong & Gianmarco León‐Ciliotta & Vivian Roza & Martín Valdivia & Gabriela Vega, 2019. "Urbanization Patterns, Information Diffusion, and Female Voting in Rural Paraguay," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 63(2), pages 323-341, April.
    20. John Duffy & Margit Tavits, 2006. "Beliefs and Voting Decisions: A Test of the Pivotal Voter Model," Working Paper 273, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh, revised May 2007.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:11:y:2014:i:4:p:697-717. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.