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
Top Related