Decision Theory and Juror Decision-Making

  • Stuart Nagel
  • David Lamm
  • Marian Neef
Part of the Perspectives in Law & Psychology book series (PILP, volume 2)

Abstract

This chapter has three purposes. The first purpose is to develop a method for determining the values of jurors regarding their propensities to convict or acquit. The second purpose is to use that method to determine how those propensities differ across types of jurors and cases, and how the propensities influence decisions. The third and main purpose is to discuss how such propensities can be brought more into line with the legal rules which specify that defendants should not be convicted unless they appear to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Keywords

Income Mountain Side Decid Stake Preconceive 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Behn, R., & Vaupel, J. Analytical thinking for busy decision makers. New York: Basic Books, 1978.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, R., Kahr, A., & Peterson, C. Decision analysis for the manager. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1974.Google Scholar
  3. Charrow, R., & Charrow, V. Making legal language understandable: A psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review, 1979, 79, 1306–1374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cullison, A. The model of rules and the logic of decision. In S. Nagel (Ed.), Modeling the criminal justice system. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1971.Google Scholar
  5. Davis, J. H., Bray, R. M., & Holt, R. W. The empirical study of social decision processes in juries. In J. L. Tapp & F. J. Levine (Eds.), Law, justice, and the individual in society: Psychological and legal issues. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1977.Google Scholar
  6. Elwork, A., & Sales, B. D. Psycholegal research on the jury and trial processes. In D. Petty, W. Curran, & L. McGarry (Eds.), Modern legal medicine and forensic science. Philadelphia: F. A. Davis, 1978.Google Scholar
  7. Elwork, A., Sales, B., & Alfini, J. Juridic decision: In ignorance of the law or in light of it ? Law and Human Beahvior, 1977, 1, 163–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Erlanger, H. Jury verdict research in America: Its past and future. Law and Society Review, 1970, 4, 345–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fortescue, J. A learned commendation of the laws of England (reprint of 1567 ed.). New York: W. J. Johnson, 1969.Google Scholar
  10. Fried, M., Kaplan, K., & Klien, K. Juror selection: An analysis of voir dire. In R. J. Simon (Ed.), The jury system in America: A critical overview. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1975.Google Scholar
  11. Goldsmith, R. Applications of probability and signal detection theory to court decision making (unpublished conference paper, 1973 ).Google Scholar
  12. Hale, M. Pleas of the crown (reprint of 1678 ed.). Oxford, England: Professional Books Limited, 1972.Google Scholar
  13. Howard, R. A. The science of decision making. In Stanford Research Institute, Readings in decision analysis. Stanford: Stanford Research Institute, 1977.Google Scholar
  14. Huber, G. Methods for quantifying subjective probabilities and multi-attribute utilities. Decision Sciences, 1974, 5, 430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Illinois pattern jury instructions: Criminal. Chicago: Burdette-Smith Co., 1968.Google Scholar
  16. Kalven, H., Jr., & Zeisel, H. The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown, 1966.Google Scholar
  17. Kaplan, J. Decision theory and the factfinding process. Stanford Law Review, 1968, 20, 1065–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kaplan, M., & Kemmerick, G. Juror judgment as information integration: Combining evidential and nonevidential information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 30, 493–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaplan, M., & Miller, L. Reducing the effects of juror bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978, 36, 1443–1455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kerr, N. L., Atkin, R. S., Stasser, G., Meek, D., Holt, R. W., & Davis, J. H. Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: Effects of concept definition and assigned decision rule on the judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 34, 282–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kotler, P. Marketing decision making: A model building approach. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1971.Google Scholar
  22. Lempert, R. Modeling relevance. Michigan Law Review, 1977, 75, 1021–1057.Google Scholar
  23. Lindsey, P., & Norman, D. Human information processing. New York: Academic Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  24. Mack, R. Planning on uncertainty: Decision making in business and government administration. New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1971.Google Scholar
  25. Marshall, C., & Wise, J. Juror decisions and the determination of guilt in capital punishment cases: A Bayesian perspective. In D. Wendt & C. Vlek (Eds.), Utility, probability, and human decision making. Hingham, Mass.: Reidel, 1975.Google Scholar
  26. McCormick, C. Handbook of the law of evidence. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing, 1954.Google Scholar
  27. Monkman, G. Readings in correctional economics. Washington, D.C.: ABA Center for Correctional Economics, 1974.Google Scholar
  28. Mowen, J., & Linder, D. Discretionary aspects of jury decision making. In L. Abt & I Stuart (Eds.), Social psychology and discretionary law. New York: Van Norstrand & Reinhold, 1979.Google Scholar
  29. Nagel, S. Judicial prediction and analysis from empirical probability tables. Indiana Law Journal, 1966, 41, 403–419.Google Scholar
  30. Nagel, S. Modeling the criminal justice system. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1977.Google Scholar
  31. Nagel, S., & Neef, M. The legal process: Modeling the system. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1977.Google Scholar
  32. Nagel, S., & Neef, M. Decision theory and the legal process. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath, 1978.Google Scholar
  33. Nagel, S., & Neef, M. Plea bargaining, decision theory, and equilibrium models. Indiana Law Journal, 1976, 51, 52, 1010–1018.Google Scholar
  34. Nagel, S., Neef, M., & Weiman, T. A rational method for determining prison sentences. Judicature, 1978, 61, 371–375.Google Scholar
  35. Ostrom, T. Perspective as a determinant of attitude change. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970, 6, 280–292.Google Scholar
  36. Peterson, K. The juror’s decision: The effect of sentencing on type I and type II errors. Masters thesis, Stanford University, 1975.Google Scholar
  37. Prescott, E. Facets of the jury system: A survey. Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts, 1976.Google Scholar
  38. Raiffa, H. Decision analysis: Introductory lectures on choices under uncertainty. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968.Google Scholar
  39. Sales, B. D., Elwork, A., & Alfini, J. J. Improving comprehension for jury instructions. In B. D. Sales (Ed.), Perspectives in law and psychology. Vol. 1: The criminal justice system. New York: Plenum, 1977.Google Scholar
  40. Schum, D. Contrast effects in inference: On the conditioning of current evidence by prior evidence. Orgainizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1977, 18, 217–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Simon, R. J. Beyond a reasonable doubt: An experimental attempt at quantification. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1970, 6, 203–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Simon, R. J. (Ed.), The jury system in America: A critical overview. Beverely Hills: Sage, 1975.Google Scholar
  43. Simon, R. J., & Mahan, L. Quantifying burdens of proofs: A veiw from the bench, the jury, and the classroom. Law and Society Review, 1971, 5, 319–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Simon, R. J., & Marshall, P. The jury system. In S. Nagel (Ed.), The rights of the accused: In law and action. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1972.Google Scholar
  45. Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. Comparison of Bayesian and regression approaches to the study of information processing in judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performances, 1971, 6, 649–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thomas, E., & Hogue, A. Apparent weight of evidence, decision criteria, and confidence ratings in juror decision making. Psychological Review, 1976, 83, 442–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tribe, L. An ounce of detention: Preventative justice in the world of John Mitchell. Virginia Law Review, 1970, 56, 371, 385–390.Google Scholar
  48. Tullock, G. The logic of the law. New York: Basic Books, 1971.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stuart Nagel
    • 1
  • David Lamm
    • 2
  • Marian Neef
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of IllinoisUrbanaUSA
  2. 2.Georgetown University Law SchoolUSA
  3. 3.Department of Public Administration, Baruch CollegeCity University of New YorkNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations