FIRST-BALLOT VOTES, PREDELIBERATION DISPOSITIONS, AND FINAL VERDICTS IN JURY TRIALS
FIRST-BALLOT VOTES, PREDELIBERATION DISPOSITIONS, AND FINAL VERDICTS IN JURY TRIALS
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/bf01499324
复制
发表时间：
1995-04-01
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
DILLEHAY, RC
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
SANDYS, M;DILLEHAY, RC
本研究探讨的命题，即第一次投票预测陪审团的裁决，在实际的陪审团，一个经常被引用的发现，从卡尔文和蔡塞尔，明确的假设，卡尔文和蔡塞尔，第一次投票的偏好是等同于审议前的意见，被称为解放假说。来自曾在重罪陪审团任职的受访者的采访数据表明，第一次投票确实能预测陪审团的高水平裁决。然而，在第一轮投票之前，陪审团中可能会产生影响，使得第一轮投票中的选票分配不太可能等同于陪审员在进入审议时的个人倾向，这对解放假设提出了质疑。在这些主题的真实的陪审团的研究方法问题进行了讨论。
This study examines the proposition that first ballots predict jury verdicts in actual juries, an oft-cited finding from Kalven and Zeisel, and the explicit assumption by Kalven and Zeisel that first-ballot preferences are equivalent to predeliberation opinions, referred to as the liberation hypothesis. Interview data from respondents who had served on felony juries indicate that first ballots do predict jury verdicts at a high level. However, it is probable that influence occurs in juries prior to the first ballot, making it unlikely that the distribution of votes on the first ballot is equivalent to the individual inclinations of jurors at the time they enter into deliberation, which casts doubt on the liberation hypothesis. Methodological issues in the study of real juries on these topics are discussed.