Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Point and Counterpoint: A Discussion of Jury Research in the Civil Arena

Point and Counterpoint: A Discussion of Jury Research in the Civil Arena Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 6, 1999 Point and Counterpoint: A Discussion of Jury Research in the Civil Arena Richard L. Wiener Many jury researchers hold as their ultimate goal influencing public policy by persuading the appellate courts or legislatures about the need for changes in law. Some scholars actively pursue public policy debate in their writings or in open testimony at court, in legislative committees, or in front of other investigative bodies. Recently, Law and Human Behavior has published a number of empirical investigations of jury decision making in civil cases, often emphasizing studies of how jurors make decisions about compensatory and punitive damages. One such program of research by Reid Hastie and his colleagues focuses on discrepancies between law as written and law in litigation. This research, especially one article published in Law and Human Behavior, titled, "A study of juror and jury judgments in civil cases: Deciding liability for punitive damages" (Hastie, Schkade, & Payne, 1998), has drawn a wealth of attention from other researchers, the legal community, and the courts. The fundamental issue of the debate is, "How well do jurors follow the law to make punitive damage judgments in negligence cases?" Hastie http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Law and Human Behavior Springer Journals

Point and Counterpoint: A Discussion of Jury Research in the Civil Arena

Wiener, Richard
Law and Human Behavior , Volume 23 (6) – Sep 30, 2004
Download PDF
2 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/point-and-counterpoint-a-discussion-of-jury-research-in-the-civil-CZDn3tCsRv

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by Plenum Publishing Corporation
Subject
Psychology; Law and Psychology; Criminology and Criminal Justice, general; Personality and Social Psychology; Community and Environmental Psychology
ISSN
0147-7307
eISSN
1573-661X
DOI
10.1023/A:1022345623623
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 6, 1999 Point and Counterpoint: A Discussion of Jury Research in the Civil Arena Richard L. Wiener Many jury researchers hold as their ultimate goal influencing public policy by persuading the appellate courts or legislatures about the need for changes in law. Some scholars actively pursue public policy debate in their writings or in open testimony at court, in legislative committees, or in front of other investigative bodies. Recently, Law and Human Behavior has published a number of empirical investigations of jury decision making in civil cases, often emphasizing studies of how jurors make decisions about compensatory and punitive damages. One such program of research by Reid Hastie and his colleagues focuses on discrepancies between law as written and law in litigation. This research, especially one article published in Law and Human Behavior, titled, "A study of juror and jury judgments in civil cases: Deciding liability for punitive damages" (Hastie, Schkade, & Payne, 1998), has drawn a wealth of attention from other researchers, the legal community, and the courts. The fundamental issue of the debate is, "How well do jurors follow the law to make punitive damage judgments in negligence cases?" Hastie

Journal

Law and Human Behavior – Springer Journals

Published: Sep 30, 2004

There are no references for this article.