Inquiry and Deliberation in Judicial Systems: The Problem of Jury Size
We raise the question whether there is a rigorous argument favoring one jury system over another. We provide a Bayesian model of deliberating juries that allows for computer simulation for the purpose of studying the effect of jury size and required majority on the quality of jury decision making. We introduce the idea of jury value (J-value), a kind of epistemic value which takes into account the unique characteristics and asymmetries involved in jury voting. Our computer simulations indicate that requiring more than a > 50 % majority should be avoided. Moreover, while it is in principle always better to have a larger jury, given a > 50 % required majority, the value of having more than 12–15 jurors is likely to be negligible. Finally, we provide a formula for calculating the optimal jury size given the cost, economic or otherwise, of adding another juror.
KeywordsJury size Bayesian model Computer simulation Deliberation Voting
This paper was written by Angere and Olsson, except the second part of Sect. 6, which was written by Genot.
- Blackstone, Sir W. (1769). Commentaries on the laws of England. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
- Broome, J. (1991). Weighing goods: Equality, uncertainty and time. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Dhami, M. (2008). On measuring quantitative interpretations of reasonable doubt. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 353–363.Google Scholar
- Forsyth, J., & Macdonnell, H. (2009). Scotland’s unique 15-strong juries will not be abolished. In The Scotsman. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
- Hintikka, J., Halonen, I., & Mutanen, A. (2002). Interrogative logic as a general theory of reasoning. In D. M. Gabbay, R. H. Johnson, H. J. Ohlbach, & J. Woods (Eds.), Handbook of the logic of argument and inference (pp. 295–337). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Jeffrey, R. (1990). The logic of decision (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Jacobstein, J. M., & Mersky, R. M. (1998). Articles and bibliography from the literature of law and the social and behavioral sciences. Littleton: Rothman.Google Scholar
- Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Luckhurst, T. (2005). The case for keeping ‘Not Proven’ verdict. The sunday times.Google Scholar
- McCauliff, C. M. A. (1982). Burdens of proof: Degrees of belief, quanta of evidence, or constitutional guarantees? Vanderbilt Law Review, 35, 1293–1335.Google Scholar
- Ministry of Justice. (2011). Criminal justice statistics. Quarterly update to December 2010. Available online at http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/criminal-justice-stats/criminal-stats-quarterly-dec10.pdf.
- Olsson, E. J. (2013). A Bayesian simulation model of group deliberation and polarization. In F. Zenker (ed.) Bayesian argumentation. Dordrecht/New York: Synthese Library, Springer.Google Scholar
- United States Courts. (2010). U. S. district courts–criminal defendants disposed of, by type of disposition and offense (excluding transfers), during the 12-month period ending March 31, 2010. Available online at http://www.uscourts.gov/Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/Statistics/FederalJudicialCaseloadStatistics/2010/tables/D04Mar10.pdf.
- Volokh, A. (1997). n guilty men. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 146, 173–216.Google Scholar