Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
(2012)
Congressional record of the fifth meeting of the judicial and legal committee in the first session of the eighth Legislative Yuan
M. Kaplan, Charles Miller (1987)
Group decision making and normative versus informational influence: Effects of type of issue and assigned decision rule.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53
S. Kassin, L. Wrightsman (1983)
The construction and validation of a juror bias scaleJournal of Research in Personality, 17
J. Hilbe (2009)
Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical ModelsJournal of Statistical Software, 30
Serena Guarnaschelli, R. McKelvey, T. Palfrey (2000)
An Experimental Study of Jury Decision RulesAmerican Political Science Review, 94
Sangjoon Kim, Jaihyun Park, Kwangbai Park, J. Eom (2013)
Judge‐Jury Agreement in Criminal Cases: The First Three Years of the Korean Jury SystemLSN: Courts (Topic)
L. Lecci, Bryan Myers (2008)
Individual Differences in Attitudes Relevant to Juror Decision Making: Development and Validation of the Pretrial Juror Attitude Questionnaire (PJAQ)1Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38
H. Friedman (1972)
Trial by Jury: Criteria for Convictions, Jury Size and Type I and Type II ErrorsThe American Statistician, 26
R. Foss (1981)
Structural effects in simulated jury decision making.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40
M. Galanter (2004)
The Vanishing Trial: An Examination of Trials and Related Matters in Federal and State CourtsJournal of Empirical Legal Studies, 1
M. Kuftinec (1995)
When in doubt.American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics, 107 1
R. MacCoun, N. Kerr (1988)
Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: jurors' bias for leniency.Journal of personality and social psychology, 54 1
(1976)
Not necessarily twelve and not necessarily unanimous : Evaluating the impact of Williams v
A. Brownlie (1973)
Judging the JuryJournal of The Forensic Science Society, 13
Dennis Devine, Laura Clayton, Benjamin Dunford, Rasmy Seying, Jennifer Pryce (2001)
Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups.Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 7
Steven Penrod, R. Hastie (1979)
Models of jury decision making: A critical review.Psychological Bulletin, 86
(2011)
Is lay participation appropriate for Taiwan
B. Bornstein (1999)
The Ecological Validity of Jury Simulations: Is the Jury Still Out?Law and Human Behavior, 23
R. MacCoun, T. Tyler (1988)
The basis of citizens' perceptions of the criminal jury: Procedural fairness, accuracy, and efficiency.Law and Human Behavior, 12
(2012)
Civic groups ’ joint statement against Judicial Yuan ’ s lay observer bill
(1985)
Deadlocked juries and the Allen charge
(2007)
The state-ofthe-states survey of jury improvement efforts: A compendium report
(2010)
Japan’s new lay judge system: Deliber
Charles Miller (1985)
Group decision making under majority and unanimity decision rulesSocial Psychology Quarterly, 48
T. Feddersen, W. Pesendorfer (1996)
Convicting the Innocent: The Inferiority of Unanimous Jury Verdicts under Strategic VotingAmerican Political Science Review, 92
Hiroshi Fukurai (2007)
The Rebirth of Japan's Petit Quasi-Jury and Grand Jury Systems: A Cross-National Analysis of Legal Consciousness and the Lay Participatory Experience in Japan and the U.S.Cornell International Law Journal, 40
S. Diamond (1997)
Illuminations and Shadows from Jury SimulationsLaw and Human Behavior, 21
V. Hamilton, R. Hastie, Steven Penrod, N. Pennington (1985)
Inside the Jury.Contemporary Sociology, 14
Kuo‐Chang Huang, C. Lin (2013)
Rescuing Confidence in the Judicial System: Introducing Lay Participation in TaiwanWiley-Blackwell: Journal of Empirical Legal Studies
Jae-Hyup Lee (2009)
Getting Citizens Involved: Civil Participation in Judicial Decision-Making in KoreaEast Asia Law Review, 4
J. Davis, N. Kerr, R. Atkin, R. Holt, David Meek (1975)
The decision processes of 6- and 12-person mock juries assigned unanimous and two-thirds majority rules.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32
J. Ogloff, N. Vidmar (1994)
The impact of pretrial publicity on jurorsLaw and Human Behavior, 18
R. Wiener, D. Krauss, Joel Lieberman (2011)
Mock jury research: where do we go from here?Behavioral sciences & the law, 29 3
S. Diamond, M. Rose, B. Murphy (2012)
Revisiting the unanimity requirement: The behavior of the non-unanimous civil juryNorthwestern University Law Review, 100
R. MacCoun (1989)
Experimental Research on Jury Decision-MakingScience, 244
C. Thomas (2000)
World jury systems
Douglas Narby, B. Cutler, G. Moran (1993)
A meta-analysis of the association between authoritarianism and jurors' perceptions of defendant culpability.Journal of Applied Psychology, 78
(1997)
What do jury experiments tell us about how juries ( should ) make decisions ?
(2008)
Jury deliberation
(2008)
Jury size and decision rule
V. Hans (2008)
Jury Systems Around the WorldAnnual Review of Law and Social Science, 4
(1992)
Decision making by juries
Dennis Devine (2012)
Jury Decision Making: The State of the Science
N. Kerr, R. Atkin, Garold Stasser, David Meek, R. Holt, J. Davis (1976)
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, 34
C. Nemeth (1977)
Interactions between jurors as a function of majority vs. unanimity decision rules.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7
R. Morris (1947)
Convicting the InnocentJournal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 37
(1996)
The influence of the size and decision rule in jury
T. Eisenberg, Paula Hannaford-Agor, V. Hans, Nicole Waters, G. Munsterman, Stewart Schwab, M. Wells (2004)
Judge-Jury Agreement in Criminal Cases: A Partial Replication of Kalven & Zeisel's The American JurySocial Science Research Network
S. Nagel, M. Neef (1975)
Deductive Modeling to Determine an Optimum Jury Size and Fraction Required to ConvictWashington University Law Review, 1975
A. Goldstein, H. Kalven, H. Zeisel, Thomas Callahan, P. Ennis (1966)
The American JuryLaw & Society Review, 1
The first mock jury study in Taiwan, in which 279 community members watched a videotaped trial, investigated how jurors’ estimates of the relative undesirability of wrongful conviction versus wrongful acquittal predicted individual decisions and how decision rules affected outcomes. The percentage of jurors who viewed wrongful conviction as more undesirable increased from 50.9% to 60.9% after deliberation and jurors’ postdeliberation acquittal rate (71.7%) was higher than predeliberation acquittal rate (58.8%). Jurors’ estimates of the undesirability of wrongful conviction were not correlated with their predeliberation votes but became positively correlated with their postdeliberation decisions. The unanimous rule facilitated jurors’ change of vote, predominantly from conviction to acquittal, than the simple majority rule. Jurors reaching a verdict under the unanimous rule viewed deliberation and the verdict more positively. This study indicates that deliberation can ameliorate the problem of most Taiwanese citizens not viewing wrongful conviction as more undesirable than wrongful acquittal. It also suggests that Taiwan should adopt a unanimous rule for its proposed lay participation system.
Law and Human Behavior – American Psychological Association
Published: Aug 7, 2014
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.