PhilArchive
open access
Mock Juries, Real Trials: How to Solve (some) Problems with Jury Science
Jury science is fraught with difficulty. Since legal and institutional hurdles render it all but impossible to study live criminal jury deliberation, researchers make use of various indirect methods to evaluate jury performance. But each of these methods are open to methodological criticism and, strikingly, some of the highest-profile jury research programmes in recent years have reached opposing conclusions. Uncertainty about jury performance is an obstacle for legal reform—ongoing debates about the ‘justice gap’ for complainants of sexual offences has rendered these problems stark. This paper proposes a way to advance the debate.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Race-Conscious Jury Selection#432302
- Jurisprudence and Gender#335500
- Why are there no platypuses at the Olympics?: A teleological case for athletes with disorders of sexual development to compete within their sex category#735497
- The Influence of Domestic Legal Traditions on the Gender Jurisprudence of International Criminal Tribunals#269917
- Men and Women of the Bar: The Impact of Gender on Legal Careers#493752
Record · ID 709253
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive