The Impact of Heuristic Thinking on Jury Nullification - With a Focus on the Discussions in the U.S. -
4
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Jury nullification occurs when jurors deliberately rejects the evidence or refuses to apply the law. Jury nullification can be facilitated primarily because of jurors’ discretionary power along with the double jeopardy clause and the general verdict.When a juror faces a difficult question to solve, he tends to rely on heuristic thinking mode in which he substitutes an easy question for the difficult question. They would prefer having confidence in their verdicts as they decide such an important matter as the fate of another individual. However, the problem of such heuristic thinking lies in that it can lead to errors and mistakes because jurors are not dealing with and solving the same question that they were given at the first place. In exercising jury nullification, jurors tend to rely on heuristic thinking mode consciously or unconsciously and end up reaching a heuristic judgment. Problems with heuristic thinking in jury nullification are as follows. In heuristic thinking, jurors may put too much weight and reliance on a piece of evidence than what it is deserved. Since jury nullification is made in reliance of intuitive judgments, the jury is prone to make predictions that can be rather extreme. To minimize the ramifications from such heuristic thinking, the judges and lawyers must use jury instructions effectively. Through the jury instructions, jurors must be reminded not to rely on heuristic thinking method. The jury instruction should be given especially after the selection of the jury and before the beginning of the actual trial so that the jury can guard against the tendency for heuristic thinking. The deliberation and verdict with consensus free from heuristic thinking would become more probable with the effective use of jury instructions throughout the trial.
Abstract
Jury nullification occurs when jurors deliberately rejects the evidence or refuses to apply the law. Jury nullification can be facilitated primarily because of jurors’ discretionary power along with the double jeopardy clause and the general verdict.When a juror faces a difficult question to solve, he tends to rely on heuristic thinking mode in which he substitutes an easy question for the difficult question. They would prefer having confidence in their verdicts as they decide such an important matter as the fate of another individual. However, the problem of such heuristic thinking lies in that it can lead to errors and mistakes because jurors are not dealing with and solving the same question that they were given at the first place. In exercising jury nullification, jurors tend to rely on heuristic thinking mode consciously or unconsciously and end up reaching a heuristic judgment. Problems with heuristic thinking in jury nullification are as follows. In heuristic thinking, jurors may put too much weight and reliance on a piece of evidence than what it is deserved. Since jury nullification is made in reliance of intuitive judgments, the jury is prone to make predictions that can be rather extreme. To minimize the ramifications from such heuristic thinking, the judges and lawyers must use jury instructions effectively. Through the jury instructions, jurors must be reminded not to rely on heuristic thinking method. The jury instruction should be given especially after the selection of the jury and before the beginning of the actual trial so that the jury can guard against the tendency for heuristic thinking. The deliberation and verdict with consensus free from heuristic thinking would become more probable with the effective use of jury instructions throughout the trial.
참고문헌 (31)
- Alexis de Tocqueville, "Democracy in America Vol. I." (1946), A. A. Knopf
- Amos Tversky, "Judgment under Uncertainty:Heuristics and Biases", Science, 185, pp.1124~1131 (1974)
- Baba Shiv, "Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making", Journal of Consumer Research, 26, pp.278~292 (1999)
- "California v. Simpson, No. BA097211, 1995 WL 686429, (Cal. Super. Ct. Sept. 27, 1995)", ~ (1995)
- Carol B. Anderson, "Inside Jurors’ Minds: The Hierarchy of Juror Decision-Making: A Primer on the Psychology of Persuasion: A Trial Lawyer’s Guide to Understanding How Jurors Think", pp.129~ (2012), National Institute for Trial Advocacy
- Cass R. Sunstein, "Probability Neglect: Emotions, Worst Cases, and Law", Yale Law Journal, 112, pp.61~107 (2002)
- Daniel Kahneman, "Thinking, Fast and Slow", pp.98~ (2011), Penguin Books
- "Doctor Freed in Wife’s Death", The New York Times, ~ (1988)
- "Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145", ~ (1968)
- E. Sutherland, "Principles of Criminology" (1966), Lippincott
- Edmond Constantini, "The Partial Juror: Correlates and Causes of Prejudgment", Law and Society Review, 15, pp.36~ (1980)
- "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 50", ~
- George F. Loewenstein, "Risk as Feelings", Psychological Bulletin, 127, pp.267~286 (2001)
- George Polya, "How to Solve It" (1945), Princeton University Press
- Gerd Gigerenzer, "Simple Heuristics That Make US Smart" (1999), Oxford University Press
- Harry Kalven, "The American Jury", pp.163~167 (1971), University of Chicago Press
- James P. Levine, "Juries and Politics", pp.1~7 (1992), Brooks Publishing Company
- James P. Levine, "Jury Toughness: The Impact of Conservatism on Criminal Court Verdicts", Crime and Delinquency, 29, pp.78~ (1983)
- Jerome Frank, "Courts on Trial: Myth and Reality in American Justice", pp.14~36 (1967), Athenium
- John Call, "Psychology in Litigation", Trial, 21, pp.48~ (1985)
- Margaret Hornblower, "Jury Exonerates Goetz in 4 subway shootings", The Washington Post, ~ (1987)
- Martin Kaplan, "Reducing the Effects of Juror Bias", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, pp.1443~ (1978)
- Patrick E. Higginbotham, "So Why Do We Call Them Trial Courts?", SMU L. Rev, 55, pp.1405~ (2002)
- Paul Slovic, "New Directions for Methodology of Social and Behavioral Science: Question Framing and Response Consistency", pp.21~36 (1982), Jossey-Bass
- "People v. Goetz, 73 N.Y.2d 751", ~ (1988)
- Steven M. Warshawsky, "Opposing Jury Nullification: Law, Policy, and Prosecutorial Strategy", Geo. L.J, 85, pp.191~ (1996)
- "The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution", ~
- Thomas Gilovich, "Commission, Omission, and Dissonance Reduction: Coping with Regret in the “Monty Hall” Problem", Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, pp.182~190 (1995)
- "U.S. v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 1997)", ~ (1997)
- Wouter Kool, "Decision Making and the Avoidance of Cognitive Demand", Journal of Experimental Psychology, 139, pp.665~682 (2010)