Jury Deliberation and Civic Engagement

参与式民主理论的一个基本假设认为，公民参与提高了个人的政治效能，并增加了未来的政治参与。尽管这种经验性的主张对政治哲学、公共审议、公民参与和宪法法律都很重要，但它还没有得到直接的检验。为了克服过去研究的局限性，本项目检验了参与假说与陪审团服务对选举参与的影响。陪审团提供了一种理想的测试，因为它是一种非自愿的、制度化的公共服务形式，广大公众都可以接触到。据假设，担任陪审员并做出裁决的个人比那些没有确定经验的陪审员更有可能投票并参与其他形式的公民活动。据预测，这种关系是通过政治效能的增加而调节的，并受到陪审团经验的其他方面的调节，包括审判的性质、陪审团的规模和裁决规则。该项目对一个司法管辖区的2000名陪审员的经验进行了深入审查。本研究采用面板调查设计，对理论模型中的假设环节进行检验。参与者在三个时间点接受采访：当他们进入陪审员池时，在他们担任陪审员后不久，然后在结束他们的服务很长一段时间后。这使得可以对人口、态度和行为进行基线测量，关于陪审团审议经验的自我报告数据，政治效能和其他态度的短期变化，以及选举参与以外的效力和政治行为的长期变化。在设计这项调查和其他活动时，该项目得到了一个由杰出的陪审团研究人员和公民参与学者组成的咨询小组的协助。这项研究最深远的潜在影响是在多大程度上将代表性不足的群体纳入法律和政治进程。陪审员人数不平等可能是不同社会群体登记人数和投票率不平等的根本原因之一，这项研究可能会突显实施法律改革的重要性，使陪审团池和成员陪审团更具代表性。通过揭示陪审团服务对公民的影响，研究也可以加强陪审团作为基本公共机构保持活力的理由。

A basic assumption of participatory democratic theory holds that civic engagement boosts an individual's political efficacy and increases future political participation. Though this empirical claim is important to political philosophy, public deliberation, civic engagement, and constitutional law, it has not been tested directly. To overcome the limitations of past research, this project tests the participation hypothesis in relation to the impact jury service has on electoral participation. The jury provides an ideal test because it is a non-voluntary, institutionalized form of public service to which a broad cross-section of the public is exposed. It is hypothesized that individuals who serve on juries and reach verdicts become more likely to vote and engage in other forms of civic activity than do those jurors who have inconclusive experiences. It is also predicted that this relationship is mediated by an increase in political efficacy and moderated by other aspects of the jury experience, including the nature of the trial, jury size, and decision rule. This project undertakes an in-depth examination of the experience of 2,000 jurors in a single jurisdiction. This test employs a panel survey design to test the hypothesized links in the theoretical model. Participants are interviewed at three points in time: when they enter the jury pool, shortly after they serve as jurors, then long after completing their service. This permits baseline measurement of demographics, attitudes and behaviors, self-report data on the experience of jury deliberation, short-term changes in political efficacy and other attitudes, and long-term changes in both efficacy and political behaviors beyond electoral participation. In designing this survey, as well as other activities, the project is assisted by an advisory panel consisting of preeminent jury researchers and civic engagement scholars. The most far-reaching potential impact of this research is on the degree to which underrepresented groups are included in the legal and political process. Unequal representation in juries may be among the underlying causes of unequal registration and turnout across different social groups, and the study could highlight the importance of enacting legal reforms to make the jury pool and seated juries more representative. By revealing the civic impact of jury service, research could also strengthen the case for maintaining the vitality of the jury as a basic public institution.