jurydemocracy.org the jury and democracy: how jury deliberation promotes civic engagement and...

jurydemocracy.org

The Jury and Democracy: How Jury Deliberation Promotes Civic Engagement and Political Participation

Professor John Gastil

Department of Communication

University of Washington

Presentation at the 2009 ABOTA Natural Jury Summit

jurydemocracy.orgwww.jurydemocracy.org

jurydemocracy.org

Research Team• Co-investigators

– Perry Deess, Institutional Research, NJIT– Phil Weiser, School of Law, U Colorado-Boulder– Cindy Simmons, UW Dept of Communication

• Graduate student co-authors Jay Leighter, Laura Black, Stephanie Burkhalter, Mike

Xenos, Leah Sprain, Andrea Hickerson.

• Undergraduate co-authors Jordan Larner, Tina Gall, and Ameer Dixit

jurydemocracy.org

Overview

1. Deliberative democracy

2. National study of juries and voting

3. Panel survey in King County, WA

4. Final reflections

jurydemocracy.org

Deliberative Democracy

jurydemocracy.org

Key Concepts• Deliberative democracy defined

A society that makes its collective decisions through a democratic process featuring ongoing rigorous, respectful, and inclusive examination of public issues.

• Jury and deliberative democratic values– Inclusion of diverse perspectives and voices– Influential citizen roles beyond voting– Quality of public judgment– Public commitment to deliberative decisions,

processes, and institutions

jurydemocracy.org

Brief History of Deliberation

• Disappearance and Reemergence– Public discussion movement, 1920s-1930s– Receded during WWII, Cold War– Now resurgent across the globe

• Best Practices– British Columbia

Citizens’ Assembly– Civil and Criminal Juries?

jurydemocracy.org

National Study of Juries and Voting

jurydemocracy.org

The Jury as Civic Classroom

• Two different effects– Learn about how justice system operates– Develop beliefs, capacities, and habits that

promote civic engagement.

• Assumed or asserted to be true– de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America– U.S. Supreme Court (Powers v. Ohio)– Japanese “lay assessor” system

jurydemocracy.org

“In Japanese society of the 21st century, it is incumbent on the people to break out of the excessive dependency of the state that accompanies the traditional consciousness of being governed objects, develop public consciousness within themselves, and become more actively involved in public affairs.”

- Recommendations of the Justice System Reform Council, June 12, 2001

Theoretical Background

jurydemocracy.org

National Research Sites

jurydemocracy.org

Sample List of Jury Trials

jurydemocracy.org

Sample List of Jurors

jurydemocracy.org

Sample County Voter Database

Measured five years before and after period of jury service

jurydemocracy.org

Merging DatabasesJURORS VOTERS

65% match rate

8,614 jurors (1/3 civil)

jurydemocracy.org

Key Findings

• Deliberative experience key variable– Hung juries and jurors reaching vedicts– Comparison group: Mistrial before delib.

• Other trial features – Number and nature of charges– Duration of trial and jury deliberation

• Effect only for infrequent voters participating in criminal trials

jurydemocracy.org

Comparative Effects of Jury Service on Long-Term Voter Turnout Rates

jurydemocracy.org

Panel Survey inKing County, WA

jurydemocracy.org

Survey Research Site

jurydemocracy.org

Survey Design and Results

• Three-wave survey– Wave 1: Before serving– Wave 2: Shortly after service– Wave 3: Follow-up months later

• Extension of national survey– Replicated deliberation-voting link– Showed importance of “subjective experience”– Additional effects that reach beyond the

criminal jury to include civil juries

jurydemocracy.org

Jurors’ Subjective Experience• Positive assessments

– High average ratings for satisfaction with process and verdict, treatment by judges and attorneys

– Only 2-4% of juries had even one member who believed their jury was not thorough, respectful

– Similar ratings for civil and criminal juries

• Jury service relative to expectations– 47% exceeded expectations– 42% about what they expected– 10% below expectations

jurydemocracy.org

Significant Behavioral Effects

• Staying Informed– Follow politics/public issues– Talk politics (to learn)– Listen to news

• Discussing public affairs– Discuss community issues– Interest in local affairs

• Direct political engagements– Political volunteer work and group involvement– Talk politics (to persuade)– Attend political events

jurydemocracy.org

Deliberation and Civic Attitudes

Civic FaithBefore Service

Civic FaithAfter Service

Quality of Jury Deliberation

Satisfactionwith Verdict

jurydemocracy.org

Changing Views of Juries/Judges

• Empanelled jurors became– More confident in the jury system– Perceived greater fairness in crim. juries– More confidence in local/state judges– No change in perceived quality of civil juries– Stronger changes for first-time jurors

• Ideology predicted comparable effects (2004)– conservatives became more favorable toward the

Supreme Court and Congress…– but more skeptical toward civil juries

jurydemocracy.org

Reflections

jurydemocracy.org

Reflections

• Securing the jury system– Preserving the civil (and criminal) jury system– Improving the quality of service experience

• Reframing the debate on juries– Juries as a model of democratic deliberation– Recognize and augment their civic impact– Celebrate and bolster the legitimacy of all

deliberative public institutions

jurydemocracy.org