Search

Objective: Governments use vaccination mandates, of different degrees of coerciveness, to encourage or require childhood vaccination. We elicited the views of well‐informed community members on the public acceptability of using childhood vaccination mandates in Australia. Methods: Four community juries were conducted in Canberra, Launceston, Cairns and Melbourne, Australia between 2021 and 2022. We recruited 51 participants from diverse backgrounds, genders and ages through random digit dialling and social media. Two juries were held in metropolitan areas, and two in regional/rural settings. Outcome measures included jury verdicts and reasons in response to structured questions. Results: All juries were concerned about collective protection and individual rights but prioritised the former over the latter. A majority in all juries supported mandates but juries disagreed with respect to the appropriate mandate types. All juries endorsed using the least restrictive or coercive means to encourage vaccination (providing incentives or education, e.g.) before imposing penalties such as financial losses and school exclusions. The overriding view was that it is fairer to place a direct burden on parents rather than children and that mandates should be designed to avoid inequitable impacts on less advantaged groups in society. Many jurors found conscientious objection acceptable as a controlled option for resolute refusers, provided that overall vaccination coverage remains high. Conclusion: This paper gives policymakers access to the reasons that Australians have for supporting or opposing different mandates under conditions of high knowledge, understanding and deliberation regarding policy options. Sustaining high rates of vaccination requires high levels of co‐operation between governments, public health actors and the public. Our findings highlight the importance of considering public values in the design and implementation of vaccination mandates. Patient and Public Involvement: We sought input from individuals who did and did not vaccinate during the study design. The views and perspectives of nonvaccinating parents were presented in the evidence to juries. We deliberately excluded nonvaccinating individuals from participating, as the divisive and often hostile nature of the topic, and their minority status, made it difficult to ensure they would feel safe as members of the jury without overrepresenting their perspective in the sample. Two related projects engaged directly with these parents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many factors contribute to whether juries reach right verdicts. Here we focus on the role of diversity. Direct empirical studies of the effect of altering factors in jury deliberation are severely limited for conceptual, practical, and ethical reasons. Using an agent-based model to avoid these difficulties, we argue that diversity can play at least four importantly different roles in affecting jury verdicts. We show that where different subgroups have access to different information, equal representation can strengthen epistemic jury success, and if one subgroup has access to particularly strong evidence, epistemic success may demand participation by that group. Diversity can also reduce the redundancy of the information on which a jury focuses, which can have a positive impact. Finally, and most surprisingly, we show that limiting communication between diverse groups in juries can favor epistemic success as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reports of sexual offences have increased in recent years, with many cases involving allegations against high-status individuals (e.g., Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby). In addition, many of these cases have involved allegations against the defendant from multiple victims, with long delays in reporting of the alleged assault. The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of defendant occupational status (low vs. high), defendant race (White, Black), number of allegations (one vs. five victims), and the length of reporting delay (5, 20, or 35 years) on mock-juror decision-making. Mock-jurors (N = 752) read a mock-trial transcript describing a sexual assault case. After reading the trial transcript, mock-jurors were asked to provide dichotomous and continuous guilt ratings, as well as ratings regarding their perceptions of the defendant and victim. Results revealed that mock-jurors rendered more guilty verdicts, assigned higher guilt ratings, and perceived the defendant less favorably and the victim more favorably, when the defendant was White (as opposed to Black) and when there were multiple allegations against the defendant. The current findings suggest that defendant race and the number of allegations are highly influential in the context of a sexual assault case. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present paper deals with the short history of the English jury in the modern age. The main goal of the author is completing a historical research and finding the most important features concerning legal institutions of the Anglo-Saxon type of lay jurisdiction in England and Ireland. The historical perspective gives a chance to examine the institutions of the jury as a court of citizens integrated into the jurisdiction of the state for a brief period of time. The author takes the view in several periods from the early 19th century up to the end of the 20th century. It is not the procedure but the organisational rules which are under discussion here with special attention to the conditions which determined the role of the jury as a part of county courts and sessions as well as the central tribunals in London. The literature was collected in the British Library during research intervals to have the opportunity to work from special sources not cited by Central-European scholars yet.

Expert testimony on "Intimate Partner Battering and its Effects" (IPBE) and "Battered Woman Syndrome" (BWS) is offered in courtrooms to assist the factfinder in making more informed decisions in cases involving battered women defendants. Such testimony situates a battered woman's behavior in the context, thereby making sense of behavior that might appear dysfunctional, inappropriate, culpable, or otherwise impossible to understand from an objective frame of reference. Expert participation in battered women's criminal cases can be influential at many junctures in the case. This paper explores potential roles for expert consultation. such as educating prosecutors and defense attorneys, potentially influencing charging/plea decisions. Forensic evaluation reports document a battered woman's history and responses to IPV that can be relied upon by defense attorneys to develop more effective legal defense strategies pertinent to IPV history. Experts may assist in jury selection and provide general or case-specific testimony that may provide an alternative framework within which a defendant's thoughts, actions, and behaviors can be more appropriately understood within the context of intimate partner battering. At the post-trial stage, experts may assist in sentencing, state and federal post-conviction proceedings, clemency, probation, and parole proceedings. Post-conviction and habeas corpus claims often relate to expert testimony that was either not offered at trial in a battered woman's first trial, or excluded by a judge. In those cases, an expert may assist by preparing a declaration in support of a habeas corpus petition and/or testifying at any subsequent hearing to explain the myriad ways in which expert participation might have led to a more lenient outcome in the original trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is concern that jurors' decisions in rape trials might be influenced by misleading cues (e.g., victim stereotypes) potentially explaining disproportionately low conviction rates. We investigated the bias hypothesis from the heuristic–systematic model as an explanation for how jurors may be influenced by misleading stereotypes even while they are effortfully processing rape trial evidence. We expected that when case evidence was ambiguous, stereotypes would guide motivated participants' effortful information processing, but not when case evidence was strong. Mock jurors (N = 901) were asked to make decisions about a rape trial with either ambiguous or strong evidence in which the complainant was either stereotypically distressed or unemotional giving evidence. Participants were either placed under high motivation conditions to encourage effortful information processing or in a control condition with low motivation instructions to encourage less effortful processing as a comparison. Participants' information processing and case decisions were measured as key dependent variables. We found partial support for the hypothesized interaction and the bias hypothesis, suggesting that the types of evidence participants attended to in decision-making were influenced by misleading stereotypical cues. Our findings have implications for interventions to reduce the effect of misleading stereotypes on decisions in rape trials. Additional online materials for this article are available on PWQ's website at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/03616843221118018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of peremptory challenges in American criminal trials has been found to be racially discriminatory despite race-based motivation being unconstitutional in jury selection. One argument made in defense of peremptory challenges is that the prosecution and the defense counteract each other, and "cancel out" each other's impact. Using data from 208 criminal trials in Mississippi, this study examines whether the prosecution and defense counteract each other and what impact this has on juries. Findings suggest that the prosecution has a significant effect on the defense's use of peremptory challenges. Although the average proportion of Black jurors is not significantly different as a result of peremptory challenges, the greater dispersion in proportions increases the volatility in jury composition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This work presents implementation of the gender equality principle in the criminal proceed-ings of the Russian empire on the basis of the Judicial Statutes of 1864, official statistics materials of the Ministry of Justice, jury members’ documents of private origin, documentary narratives about courts, and folklore. The authors analyse and interpret statistical data on females and males acquitted and convicted by the jury court and the crown court. This work draws the following main conclusions: 1) in spite of the enforceable and officially declared equality of all subjects before the court, only men administered justice in the jury court, and the people’s legal consciousness and the settled judicial practice did not allow another situation to develop; 2) the fact that only men were jury mem-bers brought about the situation in which the jury court was less repressive to women than to men. As for crown judges, the percentage of women convicted by them was, on the contrary, generally more than that of men. Therefore, the proceedings of jury courts in the Russian empire actually breached the gender equality principle.

Jury trials have long been a cornerstone of common law and one of the essential liberties of a free country. There are times when the accused can elect for their case to be heard by a single judge or a jury and they will naturally make the decision that they feel will maximise their chance of an acquittal. In a non-jury trial, a judge has the responsibility for interpreting the relevant laws and, on occasions in higher level cases of importance, there may be a panel of judges, usually 3, 5, 7 or even 9. There are many points of view on the best option for the defendant and these are discussed at length. But there is also a scientific approach and the first part of this paper deals with the change in a probability of a decision based on the size of the judicial panel, along with whether it is in the best interests of an accused to elect a smaller panel or the largest possible. The second part considers the switch to unanimous rather than majority verdicts in cases and just who benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The formation of the Special Court for the Criminal Investigation of the Press over the past three decades, in addition to the main philosophy of the Constitutional regime under Article 168 of the Constitution - that holds the judicial protection of defendants from committing political crimes derives from peaceful conflicts against the government and the governing body, and not the perpetrators of various non-political crimes through the press - the jury's misrepresentation in the proceedings of the media and the issuance of non-specialized, unfair, disproportionate, contradictory, and sometimes unlawful regulations have resulted in continuous violation of the rights of individuals, judicial arbitrary discrimination and violations of law. The implementation of the "Political Crime Act" (due to the expectation of a single jury for political courts and press) in the final stages and the implementation of the recent "press and news agencies bill" (which has established effective regulations in the competence of press jury) can reduce the costs and damages caused by the jury's inadequate interventions and to compensate to a considerable extentthe disregard of the establishment philosophy of the jury and the purpose of the lawmaker in the incorporation of this institution in the judicial system.

Any discussion of private antitrust enforcement usually focuses on substantive law and proceedings applicable to private antitrust cases. Those elements are important, however, the efficacy of both public and private enforcement relies upon rules of law (substantive and procedural) along with their application. The latter constitutes asubstantial aspect affecting the institutions which make decisions in private antitrust enforcement cases, namely the relevant courts. The enforcement of competition law is inextricably intertwined with the economy and markets. As a result, antitrust cases are demanding for non-specialist judges, who usually do not have enough knowledge and experience in the field of competition. Even if the Damages Directive has already been implemented in all EU Member States, there is still room for discussion about developing an optimal court model for the adjudication of private antitrust enforcement cases. In the aforementioned discussion the issue of the binding effect of decisions made by the European Commission (EC) and National Competition Authorities (NCAs) in private enforcement cases, as well as the experience of judges stemming from the number of cases they have resolved, cannot be missed. Bearing this in mind, the main aim of this paper is to analyse the model of competent courts operating in private antitrust cases in twenty selected countries including the US, the UK and the vast majority of EU Member States. Taking into account that a theoretically pure concept of an ideal model of relevant court operations presumably does not exist, it is essential to try to figure out what the main characteristics of the courts might be that can lead to effective private antitrust enforcement.

The composition of a criminal court stands as one of the most interesting issues in the comparative law. Different viewpoints when it comes to the need of including non-professional citizens in the contemporary criminal procedure have contributed to interesting approaches related to regulating this issue. First of all, there are original jury systems that are a feature related mainly to the Anglo-American legal systems, but whose ideas have found their place in the European legislature as well. Furthermore, there are countries where the trial body stands as a separate authority, which consists of professional judges and lay judges, whereas some of the countries have both professional judges and lay judges, the first being in charge of resolving legal issues, and the second ones being in charge of factual issues. There are many articles devoted to the jury systems in the world, but in a very small proportion of them we could find solutions from the mixed court of the Balkan countries. Mixed court is one of the features continental countries. The authors compare Balkan countries, where Slovenia and Croatia being the European Union Members, whereas the rest of them are in the process of accession. Thereby, some of the countries strive to get their courts become more professional by leaving out citizens non-professional from the composition of trial chamber, while some of them have kept them, whereby the scope of their jurisdiction varies from one country to another. Today, it is a great question whether a mixed court will survive legislative changes, due to the criticism of the jurists and non-jurists.

This article explores how the mid-19th-century jury saw itself as dominating the Maitland Circuit Court in New South Wales: it interrupted judges in their summing up, questioned witnesses and decided on cases despite legal argument. In doing so, the jury formed part of a ritualised political culture of early democracy where formality combined with outspoken independence. Jury behaviour was not checked by judges or commented on as being unusual or unexpected, suggesting that such behaviour was pervasive elsewhere. The Maitland jury therefore invites us to contemplate both the production of crime and criminality during this period and the importance of political culture in the workings of the law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Young people aged between 12 and 17 across three major British cities — London, Leeds and Nottingham — were invited to play the role of 'jurors' on a case where 'the Internet was put on trial'. The recommendations reported in this paper are intended to improve digital experience and online safety as contributions to policy. These recommendations derive from the 'youth jurors' policy deliberations designed to encourage young people to reflect on their digital experience and collectively develop their own problem definitions and solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract In 1995, Texas passed a law requiring that jurors be provided an opportunity to donate jury pay to a crime victims fund. In practice, courts present this opportunity before jury selection begins, priming the jurors about the needs of crime victims, which could bias jury decision-making. We report correlational evidence that conviction rates increased after this policy was imposed. To explore a causal link, we ran a laboratory experiment, finding that male jurors are more likely to convict a defendant after being given the opportunity to donate, while female jurors are less likely to convict. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aims to identify whether a model of juror decision-making (i.e. the threshold point model) that encompasses both rational and intuitive decision-making exists. A total of 60 participants were selected who are eligible for jury duty in Scotland. These individuals read nine vignettes and rated the evidence of each vignette separately by placing the evidence in either a guilty, a not guilty or a not proven (a verdict type specific to Scotland) counter. Participants were asked after being presented with each piece of information to state how likely they thought the suspect was of being guilty, on a scale from 1 to 100. The data are best described using a flexible model (i.e. a diffusion model) that allows for information integration. Future research should examine whether or not the diffusion model can explain cognitive fallacies, such as confirmation bias, that are commonly studied in decision science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

در صورت پذیرش مقاله ، چکیده انگلیسی توسط نویسنده مسئول که ویرستار انگلیسی مجله است در مرحله ویراستاری، اضافه خواهد گردیددر صورت پذیرش مقاله ، چکیده انگلیسی توسط نویسنده مسئول که ویرستار انگلیسی مجله است در مرحله ویراستاری، اضافه خواهد گردیددر صورت پذیرش مقاله ، چکیده انگلیسی توسط نویسنده مسئول که ویرستار انگلیسی مجله است در مرحله ویراستاری، اضافه خواهد گردیددر صورت پذیرش مقاله ، چکیده انگلیسی توسط نویسنده مسئول که ویرستار انگلیسی مجله است در مرحله ویراستاری، اضافه خواهد گردیددر صورت پذیرش مقاله ، چکیده انگلیسی توسط نویسنده مسئول که ویرستار انگلیسی مجله است در مرحله ویراستاری، اضافه خواهد گردیددر صورت پذیرش مقاله ، چکیده انگلیسی توسط نویسنده مسئول که ویرستار انگلیسی مجله است در مرحله ویراستاری، اضافه خواهد گردیددر صورت پذیرش مقاله ، چکیده انگلیسی توسط نویسنده مسئول که ویرستار انگلیسی مجله است در مرحله ویراستاری، اضافه خواهد گردیددر صورت پذیرش مقاله ، چکیده انگلیسی توسط نویسنده مسئول که ویرستار انگلیسی مجله است در مرحله ویراستاری، اضافه خواهد گردید

Descriptive and normative discussions of whether the jury trial is or should be a political institution are complicated by the systematic ambiguity of the most important terms in this discussion. One influential perspective understands a political actor as "he would decide on the exception." This seems to fit the jury insofar as it may nullify the written law in its decisions. It turns out, however, that the jury's actual practices demonstrate that the usual notion of sovereignty is far too narrow. Las discusiones descriptivas y normativas de si el juicio por jurado es o debe ser una institución política son complicadas por la ambigüedad sistemática de los términos más importantes de esta discusión. Una perspectiva influyente entiende que un actor político tomaría una decisión sobre la excepción”. Esto parece encajar en el jurado en la medida en que puede anular en sus decisiones la ley escrita. Resulta, sin embargo, que las prácticas reales del jurado demuestran que la noción habitual de soberanía es demasiado estrecha. DOWNLOAD THIS PAPER FROM SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2765477