In search of reasonable doubt

A number of different approaches have been used to quantify jurors' use of the decision criterion known as reasonable doubt. The purpose of the present study was to determine which of a select group of these approaches could be utilized to match the actual decisions of individuals role-playing jurors for an assault trial. Simon's (1970) rank-order approach, a self-report approach, an approach derived from Statistical Decision Theory (Fried, Kaplan, & Klein, 1975), and one derived from Justice White's explanation of theJohnson v. Louisiana (1972) decision were each used to estimate values for reasonable doubt. The estimates were then used to recreate the individual decisions, and the recreated decisions were then compared to the actual decisions. The results indicated that every approach accurately matched the actual decisions at a better-than-chance rate, although the rank-order and decision theory approaches were most accurate. The reasonable doubt estimates obtained from each of the approaches were also used to examine the basic assumption underlying the Thomas and Hogue (1976) juror decision model. Only the estimates from the decision theory approach provided consistent support for the assumption. A variety of methods were suggested for more definite determinations of the accuracy of the approaches tested, and the relative merits of the approaches were discussed.     

Bounding reasonable doubt: implications for plea bargaining

A bound for reasonable doubt is offered based on the cost of type I and type II errors. The bound increases with the punishment, hence its use as a conviction threshold may leave too many offenders of severe crimes at large. Plea bargaining addresses this limitation but introduces strategic interaction between concerned parties. Considering strategic interaction between defendants and judge/jury, it is shown that to any plea offer there corresponds a unique equilibrium. Moreover, all equilibria share the same conviction threshold, given by the reasonable doubt bound. The latter property ensures that the plea bargaining procedure is consistent with the ‘equality before the law’ principle. The former property (that to any plea offer there corresponds a unique equilibrium) bears implications for the design of plea bargain schemes.     

Juror adjustments to the reasonable doubt standard of proof

The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is based on the law's primary motivation to avoid false conviction even at the expense of increasing the probability of false acquittal. Individual jurors, however, have common sense motivations to make factually correct decisions by avoiding both types of error. As a result jurors may interpret the standard of reasonable doubt correctly but deviate from that interpretation in predictable ways when they apply the standard in court. This study makes three hypotheses: (1) jurors are less confident when deciding on acquittal than when deciding upon conviction, (2) conviction is associated with a downward adjustment of the interpreted stringency of the standard at the time of application, and (3) a highly stringent interpretation of the standard is associated with a severe downward adjustment of that stringency at the time of application. The study asked 260 juror-eligible participants to examine a trial scenario. The participants first interpreted the stringency of the legal standard on a probability scale. They then judged the probability of the defendant's guilt, decided on a verdict, and rated their confidence in that verdict. The findings strongly supported all three hypotheses. Application and implication of the study were discussed.     

Decision theory,reasonable doubt,and the utility of erroneous acquittals

A criminal-trial juror votes to convict or acquit a defendant in the knowledge that the vote may be in error: False convictions and false acquittals are unavoidable in human fact-finding systems. We show here that rigorous consistency relationships exist between the juror's assessments of the relative desirability of the four possible trial outcomes and his or her threshold level of reasonable doubt. However, numerical values for reasonable doubt commonly obtained by direct questioning are significantly at variance with those obtained indirectly by computation from evaluations of the four possible outcomes. The disparity is, we argue, no mere methodological detail, but a potentially fundamental substantive issue which has historically been masked by the vagueness of verbal expressions of probability and utility.Helpful comments on earlier drafts from Gary Wagner, Michael Gottfredson, Brian Thorn, Rick Greenstein, Vernon Greene, John Bartholdi, and two anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged.     

Effects of judicial instructions and juror characteristics on interpretations of beyond reasonable doubt

The standard of proof, beyond reasonable doubt (BRD), serves as a threshold for reaching verdicts in criminal cases. Past research has demonstrated that factors such as the wording of judicial instructions defining the standard can influence people's interpretation of it. In addition, there is some concern that instructions may not be effective for the wider jury-eligible population. In an experimental study involving members of the general public, we examined the effect of two commonly used judicial instructions (i.e. sure and firmly convinced) against a situation when BRD was undefined, on people's quantitative interpretations of BRD as well as on their self-reported understanding of the standard and confidence in applying it. We also explored the effect of juror characteristics (i.e. gender, age and education). Compared to when the standard was undefined, the sure instruction helped to reduce inter-individual variability in interpretations of BRD and the firmly convinced instruction increased people's understanding of the standard. However, neither instruction was effective in increasing confidence in applying the standard or in reducing observed individual differences. These findings underscore the importance of developing evidence-based judicial instructions that can benefit the broad jury-eligible population equally and in a variety of ways.     

The roots of Russian organized crime: from old-fashioned professionals to the organized criminal groups of today

This study focuses on the development of persons and organizations in the successor states of the Soviet Union, with an emphasis on Russia. It examines the development of criminal professionalism in Russia between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries and argues that exiling peasants to Siberia contributed to the development of a criminal underworld and the creation of a professional criminal underclass. In the early to late Soviet periods, vory v zakone, or “thieves-in-law,” evolved together with criminal groups as a means to survive in the GULAG, these criminal groups operating within the Soviet prisons and penal colonies. Inadequacies of the Soviet system of central planning led to the criminalization of the Soviet economy and the emergence of the thieves-in-law as critical players. Activities such as racketeering, robbery, and other crimes were dangerous but predominantly secondary. The roots of the Russian mafia lie in the innermost depths of the Russian shadow economy. Some of the key aspects of the post-Soviet privatization process are analyzed together with the interaction between various levels of the Russian government and organized crime groups. It is argued that the state was not corrupted by organized crime groups, but rather the organized crime groups became the state. In the new Russia, organized crime groups and corrupt government executives work together to generatea new criminal state.     

A concept in search of a definition: The effects of reasonable doubt instructions on certainty of guilt standards and jury verdicts

Eighty (6-person) juries heard 1 of the 5 reasonable doubt instructions in a trial that either had strong evidence for guilt or favored acquittal. None of the instructions produced acceptable criteria of self-reported reasonable doubt, although instructions that informed juries to be firmly convinced (FC) elicited the highest standards of proof. The FC instructions yielded verdicts that tended to correspond with the evidence in both versions of the trial. FC juries focused proportionately more on the evidence and less on non-probative issues than juries given other instructions. Juries had lower self-reported standards of proof when the trial evidence was weak for conviction as opposed to when it was strong. The discussion addresses the surprisingly low self-reported standards of proof.     

刑事诉讼庭前审查程序之比较研究

审前程序是当今世界各国刑事诉讼的一个重要组成部分,本文比较分析了大陆法系和英美法系庭前审查程序的特点、成因及其程序价值,在此基础上对我国庭前审查程序的现状、特点及缺陷进行了深入地分析,并提出了改革的建议.     

Dimensions of criminal justice policy: The Supreme Court,the Fourth Amendment and the trial court system

A full understanding of the role of the U.S. Supreme Court’s supervisory authority over the criminal justice process must recognize that the political and social environment affects local responses to Supreme Court directives. This paper reviews the development of Supreme Court Fourth Amendment decisions in which criminal court deliver justice. The authors suggest that future treatment of problems in Supreme Court’s supervisory role and the prospects of demands for Reform being generated from the larger political community.     

检察机关刑事审判监督权初论

我国检察机关的刑事审判监督权有自身难以克服的弊端,造成了刑事诉讼实践的紊乱。本文欲从历史的角度、比较法的角度以及实践的角度,对检察机关在刑事诉讼中的审判监督权作一剖析,并在此基础上对审判监督权的改造提出自己的看法。     

Seeing the improvement of the criminal trial structure from China’s criminal courtroom arrangements (tribunal design)

The setting of criminal court has become an important representation of the criminal trial structure due to its visual and vivid reflection of the legal position and relations among the three parties of litigation, i.e. the prosecuting party, the advocating party and the judge. As a result of the influence of ancient “inquest” centered trial mode, lack of the defendant’s right to silence and incomplete revolution of the criminal trial mode, the existing criminal court setting features an umbrella shaped structure. To reform the criminal trial structure in China, we should eliminate the air of “inquest” from the existing court interrogation mode, strengthen the hearing of evidence and set up a equiangular triangle shaped trial structure of neutral trial, equality between the prosecuting and advocating parties and litigant oriented. __________ Translated from the Jurist Review, 2005, (2) (in Chinese)     

The right to a fair criminal trial： A South African perspective

The right to a free and fair trial is one of the most basic human fights afforded to mankind. In South Africa, prior to 1994, this right was afforded to accused persons by common law only. The criminal justice system in South Africa however has been changing radically since 1994 due to the inception of first the Interim Constitution and later the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. South Africa has a history of human rights abuses-also with regard to criminal trials. The right to a fair trial is now constitutionally enshrined and protected by the Bill of Rights. As a result thereof the application of this right by the South African courts has also changed and what would have passed muster in this regard prior to 1994 would not necessarily do so now. This paper seeks to explain what the right to a fair criminal trial in a democratic South Africa entails with reference to South Africa＇s international obligations in this regard as well as the provisions of the South African Constitution and case law.     

论刑事诉讼庭前审查程序的改革

现行刑诉法对原庭前审查程序作了重大修改,将庭前实质性审查改变为程序性审查,取消了庭前案卷移送制度.而司法实践对该程序的改革更是超前一步,将审判流程管理职能也赋予了庭前审查程序,实行立审分立,"将审判管理的全过程分为立案审查、庭前准备、排期传递、跟踪督办、依法审理、案件评查、违法处理、结案归档八大环节,并对各个环节的具体操作以及运行程序和期限作了明确规定,"①使立案庭掌握案件流程控制权,与审判庭分工负责、相互协助、相互监督制约.     

试论刑事政策与国际刑法的关系

刑事政策是对犯罪有组织的反应,国际刑法以研讨国际犯罪为己任,对国际犯罪的研究需要以刑事政策为视角。本文通过分析刑事政策的含义及其国际化特征与国际刑法的发展方向,在刑事政策的视野下,揭示国际刑法的发展趋势——刑事政策的国际刑法化与国际刑法的刑事政策化,进而把握刑事政策与国际刑法两者的契合性。     

论我国刑事审判监督程序之改革

The amendment of China’s Criminal Procedure Law has attracted the eyes of both the academic and judicial practice circles. In this research, the authors focus on a particular aspect of the criminal procedure law called the criminal procedure for trial supervision (also called as criminal retrial procedure) to conduct a comprehensive and systematic discussion from three aspects—the necessity of its existence and reform, the concept of its reconstruction and the detailed concepts of reform. The authors consider that the existence of the criminal retrial procedure is in line with the law of litigation, and necessary for the realization of judicial justice; there are obvious defects in China’s criminal retrial procedure in view of the realization of judicial justice and the improvement of efficiency, which calls for reform based on updated concepts. This article points out that the modern criminal retrial procedure must combine the concepts of the pursuit of justice, correction of erroneous judgments and res judicata and the rule of prohibition against double jeopardy. The authors also give several suggestions on the reform of China’s criminal retrial procedure.