Abstract
Two studies examined citizens' perceptions of the criminal jury and their evaluations of 6- or 12-person juries operating under unanimous or majority decision rules. Study 1 was a telephone survey of 130 adult citizens in which respondents evaluated alternative jury structures in the abstract. In Study 2, students were asked to evaluate jury structures for a hypothetical trial in which they were either the defendant or the victim in a crime with a mild or serious outcome. In both studies, jury size and decision rule were related to ratings of procedural cost, and the severity of the crime moderated procedural evaluations. In Study 1, juries were preferred to judges and the 12-person unanimous jury was preferred over other jury structures when the crime involved was serious. In Study 2, there were no direct effects due to variations in jury structure, but subjects appeared to trade off procedural cost and thoroughness of deliberation as a function of the seriousness of the crime. Procedural fairness emerged as the strongest independent predictor of desirability for jury procedures, and fairness was related to representativeness and accuracy. The role manipulation did not influence subjects' responses. In both studies, respondents were very supportive of the jury as an institution, despite a perception that erroneous jury verdicts do occur.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Apodeca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972).
Austin, W., & Tobiasen, J. M. (1984). Legal justice and the psychology of conflict resolution. In R. Folger (Ed.),The sense of injustice: Social psychological perspectives. New York: Plenum.
Broeder, D. W. (1954). The functions of the jury: Facts or fictions?University of Chicago Law Review, 21, 386–424.
Burger, W. (1977, December 19). How to break logjams in courts.U.S. News, and World Report, 21–27.
Burger, W. (1981, February). Is our jury system working?Reader's Digest, 118 126–130.
Colgrove v. Battin, 413 U.S. 149 (1973).
Desmond (1963, December 8). Should it take 34 months for a jury trial?New York Times, p. 4.
Lord Devlin (1956).Trial by jury. Stevens.
Frank, J. (1949).Courts on trial: Myth and reality in American justice. Princeton University Press.
Hans, V. P., & Vidmar, N. (1986).Judging the jury. New York: Plenum Press.
Hastie, R., & Penrod, S. (1979). Models of jury decision making: A critical review.Psychological Bulletin, 86, 462–492.
Hastie, R., Penrod, S., & Pennington, N. (1983).Inside the jury. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Hensler, D. H. (1986). What we know and don't know about court-administered arbitration.Judicature.69, 270–278.
Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356 (1972).
Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H. (1966).The American Jury Boston: Little-Brown.
Kaplan, M. F., & Miller, L. E. (1978). Reducing the effects of juror bias.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1443–1455.
Kerr, N. L., & MacCoun, R. J. (1985). The effects of jury size and polling method on the process and product of jury deliberation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 349–363.
Lempert, R. O. (1981). Civil juries and complex cases: Let's not rush to judgment.Michigan Law Review, 80, 68–132.
Lind, E. A. (1982). The psychology of courtroom procedure. In N. L. Kerr & R. M. Bray (Eds.),The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 13–38). New York: Academic Press.
Lind, E. A., Erickson, B. E., Friedland, N., & Dickenberger, M. (1978). Reactions to procedural models for adjudicative conflict resolution.Journal of Conflict Resolution, 22, 318–341.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. 1988.The social psychology of procedural justice New York: Plenum Press.
MacCoun, R. J. (1987a).Perceptions of accuracy and error in legal judgments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Law and Society Association Washington, D.C., June 12.
MacCoun, R. J. (1987b).Getting inside the black box: Toward a better understanding of civil jury behavior, N-2671-ICJ. The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California.
MacCoun, R. J., & Kerr, N. L. (in press). Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberations: Jurors' bias for leniency.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
McClosky H., & Brill, A. (1983).Dimensions of tolerance: What Americans believe about civil liberties. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Nesson, C. (1985). The evidence or the event? On judicial proof and the acceptability of verdicts.Harvard Law Review 98, 1357–1392.
Paul, J. (1957). Jerome Frank's views on trial by jury.Missouri Law Review, 22, 28–37.
Resnik, J. (1982). Managerial judges.Harvard Law Review, 96.
Rubin, A. B. (1982). Trial by jury in complex civil cases: Voice of liberty or verdict by confusion?Annals of the American Academy, 462, 86–103.
Saks, M. J. (1982). Innovation and change in the courtroom. In N. L. Kerr & R. M. Bray (Eds.),The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 325–352). New York: Academic Press.
Saks, M. J., & Kidd, R. F. (1980–1981). Human information processing and adjudication: Trial by heuristics.Law and Society Review, 15, 123–160.
Sheppard, B. H., & Vidmar, N. (1980). Adversary pretrial procedures and testimonial evidence: Effects of lawyer's role and Machiavellianism.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 320–332.
Sperlich, P. W. (1982). The case for preserving trial by jury in complex civil litigation.Judicature, 65, 395–415.
Stasser, G., Kerr, N. L., & Bray, R. M. (1982). The social psychology of jury deliberations: Structure, process, and product. In N. L. Kerr & R. M. Bray (Eds.),The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 221–256). New York: Academic Press.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975).Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Tribe, L. (1971). Trial by mathematics: Precision and ritual in the legal process.Harvard Law Review, 84, 1329–1393.
Tybor, J. R., & Eissman, M. (1985, October 13). Judges penalize the guilty for exercising right to jury trial.Chicago Tribune, p. 1, 6.
Tyler, T. R. (1984). Justice in the political arena. In R. Folger (Ed.),The sense of injustice: Social psychological perspectives. New York: Plenum Press.
Tyler, T. R. (1987).Why people follow the law: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and compliance. Unpublished manuscript, Northwestern University.
Tyler, T. R., & Weber, R. (1982). Support for the death penalty: Instrumental response to crime or symbolic attitude?Law and Society Review, 17, 21–45.
Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The Institute for Civil Justice, the RAND Corporation.
About this article
Cite this article
MacCoun, R.J., Tyler, T.R. The basis of citizen's perceptions of the criminal jury. Law Hum Behav 12, 333–352 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044389
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044389