The jury: Social and psychological variables

The selection of a jury is an important phase of the American court system. Many lawyers believe that wise choices at this point may mean the difference between winning and losing a case. Various means of selecting jurors have been practiced by attorneys, and there seem to be among lawyers general impressions about the type of people best suited for certain cases. These ideas have most often concerned social, economic and psychological variables rather then genetic factors.The purpose of this study is to add to the limited body of knowledge in this area by identifying and testing some of these variables. The first step was to design a research instrument to gather significant data relating to the jury system. Included in this examination were both psychological and socio-economic information. Also incorporated into the study were questions designed to reveal the respondents’ jury backgrounds. Items sought to disclose how a juror perceived the trial, interacted with the group, and voted.After the construction of the research tool, a survey was made using it in one of the counties of Florida. The interviews were conducted to gather data regarding perceptions of jurors and test the research tool. The people chosen to be interviewed came from the venire furnished by the county clerk. Analysis of the information was conducted. Statistical tests of significance revealed that the people illustrated a strong support for the jury system and a relatively high degree of commonality of attitudes. Comparisons were done on groups voting guilty with those voting not guilty. Voting tests on national origin and income further supported a homogeneity of attitudes. The importance of a trial vote to testing jurors was found.This case study aided in identifying some plausible hypotheses and providing data on the relationship of variables that are of import to understanding the jury system.     

Rethinking political development: A look backward over thirty years,and a look ahead

The article analyzes the rise of the political development approach in comparative politics and the reasons for it. It traces the history of the political development literature and its emergence as the dominant paradigm in the field. It then presents and assesses the critiques, that have been levelled against political development. It also assesses the various alternative approaches that came to supplant political development. The article next presents the factors that have led to a renaissance in political development. It concludes by suggesting that while the political development approach was based on some erroneous assumptions in the short term, from a longer-term perspective that approach looks considerably better. Howard J. Wiarda is Professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts/Amherst; associate of the Center for International Affairs. Harvard University; adjunct scholar of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research; and associate of the Foreign Policy Research Institute. This article is based on a paper presented at the Fourteenth World Congress of the International Political Science Association, Washington, D.C., August 28–September 1, 1988. A somewhat revised version of this article was presented at the Conference on “Comparative Politics: Research Perspectives for the Next Twenty Years,” sponsored byComparative Politics and the Ph.D. Program of the City University of New York, September 7–9, 1988. It will also be published under the title “Concepts and Models in Comparative Politics: Political Development Reconsidered-and Its Alternatives” in Kenneth Paul Erickson and Dankwart Rustow (eds.),Comparative Political Dynamics: Research Perspectives for the Turn of the Century (New York: Harper and Row, 1990).