我国人民陪审制度的现状及法律完善

人民陪审制度是遏止司法腐败,实现司法公平、公正的一项司法制度。应尽快制定一部《人民陪审员法》确立人民陪审制度的宪法地位,科学确定陪审的方式和范围,细化人民陪审员的权利义务。     

陪审制度效率与功能的反思

陪审制度的利弊得失背后的“效率”问题一度成为学界争论的焦点。本文站在拥护者的立场上,运用制度经济学的理论分析工具对“效率”重新界定,引入了适应性效率的概念。以此为基点,本文展开分析,认为陪审制度是人类“试错纠错”行为体现在司法活动中,用来扩展个体自由,同时降低交易费用的一种安排,它具有适应性效率。这种效率能否实现又进一步取决于陪审制度的基本功能及其互动。     

Not separate but equal? The impact of multiple-defendant trials on juror decision-making

Suspects accused of involvement in the same crime can be tried in one multiple-defendant trial. While research has long demonstrated the difficulties of being a juror, no published work has examined whether multiple-defendant trials compound these difficulties. The current research recruited both student and community samples to determine whether trying multiple defendants would increase conviction rates for individual defendants. Every participant watched one of three trial videos – a single defendant against whom the State had a strong case (single-strong), a single-defendant against whom the State had a weak case (single-weak), or a multiple-defendant trial combining both defendants (multiple-defendant). The findings demonstrated an overshare effect – when the defendants were tried together, overall conviction rates for both defendants increased relative to when they were tried alone, though the pattern of results differed by study sample. Although we are unable to provide a definitive mechanism underlying the results, the best explanation seems to be that multiple-defendant trials prompt jurors to engage in a joint evaluation of the defendants, rather than single evaluations of each. Consequently, participant-jurors’ perceptions of each defendant are impacted by how they compare with one another. Thus, the current research casts some doubt on the fairness of multiple-defendant trials.     

A mock juror investigation of blame attribution in the punishment of hate crime perpetrators

We examined blame attribution as a moderator of perceptions of hate crimes against gay, African American, and transgender victims. Participants were 510 Texas jury panel members. Results of vignette-based crime scenarios showed that victim blame displayed significant negative, and perpetrator blame significant positive, effects on sentencing recommendations. Also as hypothesized, victim and perpetrator blame moderated the effect of support for hate crime legislation. Interaction patterns suggested that both types of blame attribution influence sentencing recommendations, but only for participants disagreeing with hate crime legislation. Three-way interactions with victim type also emerged, indicating that the effects of both types of blame attribution show particular influences when the victim is gay, as opposed to transgender or African American. Implications for attribution theory, hate crime policy, and jury selection are discussed.     

Educating Jurors about Forensic Evidence: Using an Expert Witness and Judicial Instructions to Mitigate the Impact of Invalid Forensic Science Testimony

Invalid expert witness testimony that overstated the precision and accuracy of forensic science procedures has been highlighted as a common factor in many wrongful conviction cases. This study assessed the ability of an opposing expert witness and judicial instructions to mitigate the impact of invalid forensic science testimony. Participants (N = 155) acted as mock jurors in a sexual assault trial that contained both invalid forensic testimony regarding hair comparison evidence, and countering testimony from either a defense expert witness or judicial instructions. Results showed that the defense expert witness was successful in educating jurors regarding limitations in the initial expert's conclusions, leading to a greater number of not-guilty verdicts. The judicial instructions were shown to have no impact on verdict decisions. These findings suggest that providing opposing expert witnesses may be an effective safeguard against invalid forensic testimony in criminal trials.     

The influence of pretrial exposure to community outrage and victim hardship on guilt judgments

Although the courts have explicitly expressed concerns about the effects of public sentiment on juries in highly publicized cases, no research has isolated the degree to which jurors’ exposure to community outrage and/or prospective social interactions in the community independently influence judgments of guilt. In the current research, jury eligible undergraduates were randomly assigned to conditions in a 2 (negative defendant facts pretrial publicity (PTP): present vs. absent)?×?2 (community outrage PTP: present vs. absent)?×?2 (anticipated social interaction: present vs. absent) between subjects factorial design. In an online session, participants read articles containing PTP (or not), and two days later they arrived at the lab to serve as mock jurors in a murder case – before the trial they were instructed (or not) that they would interact with people from the community in which the case was taking place. Neither PTP containing extra-evidentiary facts about the defendant nor prospective interaction with the community had main or interactive effects on guilt measures; however, mock jurors rated the defendant as more likely to be guilty when they read information about community outrage and hardships on victims. These findings suggest future avenues of PTP research focusing on community outrage and victim impacts.     

Are children less reliable at making visual identifications than adults? A review

The current paper reviews research that has investigated developmental differences in lineup identification. A wealth of studies have shown that children can be as accurate as adults when making a correct identification from a target present lineup (TP), however children are more inclined to choose and thereby make a false identification from a target absent (TA) lineup, as compared to adults. The literature reviewed, suggests that the disparity between children's and adult's performances on TA lineups is due to children being unable to resist the social demands to choose someone from a lineup and/or the need to give a positive response. Employing a silhouette within a lineup, that can be chosen if the target is not recognised, appears to be the most successful technique for reducing false identifications made by child witnesses. Including a silhouette as a part of a lineup, along with the lineup administrator being attired in casual clothing, rather than a uniform, are two simple measures that could make child witness identification evidence more reliable.     

从民事诉讼目的角度看美国民事陪审制度——为什么陪审制度在美国如此重要

民事诉讼陪审制度与民事诉讼目的具有紧密的关系,从国家设立民事诉讼的目的是什么这个问题入手对美国民事陪审制度进行分析,可以揭示出其程序保障价值以及它对美国的审前程序、证据规则等诸多制度的深刻影响,也能更清晰地看到陪审制度在美国民事诉讼中如此重要的原因。     

我国法院在具体案件上适用法律的请示与批复的理性思考

请示与批复的存在有其背景条件及其现实作用,但却不具有合宪性基础。要解决该法律的悖论,必须改革我国的司法制度,使我国的法律构架统一、系统。     

普通法的早期治理

英格兰普通法的形成不是任何单一权力意志的安排,而是多元选择的产物。郡法院最初可以被当作国王用以平衡地方权势的制度装置。缺少有效的地方代理人制度,国王不得不依赖于一支巡游的司法大军来实现王国的治理,普通法的司法治理模式由此形成。作为一项司法设置,陪审制度不仅为中央司法权威的扩张提供了公信力的保障,而且也是后者得以稳健运行的制度平台。随着越来越多的社会主体通过组成陪审团参与到法律事务之中,不经意间,普通法的大厦便被如此牢固地坐落在了民间普遍认同的基石之上。