John Parkinson
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- September 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780199291113
- eISBN:
- 9780191604133
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/019929111X.003.0008
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
This chapter presents a brief conclusion which summarizes the main argument: that fully legitimate, deliberative, and democratic decision making can only be of the macro kind, not the micro. It poses ...
More
This chapter presents a brief conclusion which summarizes the main argument: that fully legitimate, deliberative, and democratic decision making can only be of the macro kind, not the micro. It poses questions for future research and answers a hypothetical question from the Leicester case, giving a group of protestors six reasons to think that the outcome of the citizens’ jury was legitimate, and one reason — its restricted, local scope — to think that it was not.Less
This chapter presents a brief conclusion which summarizes the main argument: that fully legitimate, deliberative, and democratic decision making can only be of the macro kind, not the micro. It poses questions for future research and answers a hypothetical question from the Leicester case, giving a group of protestors six reasons to think that the outcome of the citizens’ jury was legitimate, and one reason — its restricted, local scope — to think that it was not.
Brian Bornstein and Monica Miller
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- September 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780195328677
- eISBN:
- 9780199869954
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195328677.001.0001
- Subject:
- Psychology, Forensic Psychology
The phrase “God in the courtroom” conjures up several images, such as William Jennings Bryan defending religion against the tyranny of evolution, a robed deity passing divine judgment, a witness ...
More
The phrase “God in the courtroom” conjures up several images, such as William Jennings Bryan defending religion against the tyranny of evolution, a robed deity passing divine judgment, a witness swearing to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God,” and so on. But there are numerous other, often subtle ways in which religion and law intersect. This book reviews legal developments and behavioral science research concerning the effects of religion on legal practice, decision making processes of various legal actors, and trial outcomes. For example, religious beliefs might influence the decisions of legal decision makers, such as judges and jurors. Attorneys might rely on religion, both in the way they approach their professional practice generally and in specific trial tactics (e.g., using a scriptural rationale in arguing for a particular trial outcome). This book covers these and related topics in exploring how religion affects the actions of all of the major participants at trial: jurors, judges, attorneys, and litigants.Less
The phrase “God in the courtroom” conjures up several images, such as William Jennings Bryan defending religion against the tyranny of evolution, a robed deity passing divine judgment, a witness swearing to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God,” and so on. But there are numerous other, often subtle ways in which religion and law intersect. This book reviews legal developments and behavioral science research concerning the effects of religion on legal practice, decision making processes of various legal actors, and trial outcomes. For example, religious beliefs might influence the decisions of legal decision makers, such as judges and jurors. Attorneys might rely on religion, both in the way they approach their professional practice generally and in specific trial tactics (e.g., using a scriptural rationale in arguing for a particular trial outcome). This book covers these and related topics in exploring how religion affects the actions of all of the major participants at trial: jurors, judges, attorneys, and litigants.
John Parkinson
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- September 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780199291113
- eISBN:
- 9780191604133
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/019929111X.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
This book attempts to solve two problems in deliberative democratic theory and practice: How can agreements reached inside deliberative forums be legitimate for those who did not take part? And why ...
More
This book attempts to solve two problems in deliberative democratic theory and practice: How can agreements reached inside deliberative forums be legitimate for those who did not take part? And why should people with strongly-held views participate in the first place? The solution involves rethinking deliberative theory, but also draws on lessons from practical experience with deliberative forums in Britain’s National Health Service. The book discusses the competing representation claims that different participants make, the pros and cons of different approaches to democratic accountability, and different conceptions of rationality and public reasoning. It concludes by rejecting the idea that we can have authentic, legitimate deliberation in any one forum. Instead, authentic, legitimate deliberation can only result from linkages between different kinds of institutions, drawing on different kinds of participants, at different points of a decision-making cycle. That is, it promotes a macro, society-wide view of deliberative democracy quite different from the micro, deliberative-forum view which dominates thinking on the subject in the UK. The book sketches the outline of such a deliberative system, suggesting how various institutions in civil society and elected government might link together to create public decisions, which are both more rational and more democratic.Less
This book attempts to solve two problems in deliberative democratic theory and practice: How can agreements reached inside deliberative forums be legitimate for those who did not take part? And why should people with strongly-held views participate in the first place? The solution involves rethinking deliberative theory, but also draws on lessons from practical experience with deliberative forums in Britain’s National Health Service. The book discusses the competing representation claims that different participants make, the pros and cons of different approaches to democratic accountability, and different conceptions of rationality and public reasoning. It concludes by rejecting the idea that we can have authentic, legitimate deliberation in any one forum. Instead, authentic, legitimate deliberation can only result from linkages between different kinds of institutions, drawing on different kinds of participants, at different points of a decision-making cycle. That is, it promotes a macro, society-wide view of deliberative democracy quite different from the micro, deliberative-forum view which dominates thinking on the subject in the UK. The book sketches the outline of such a deliberative system, suggesting how various institutions in civil society and elected government might link together to create public decisions, which are both more rational and more democratic.
John Parkinson
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- September 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780199291113
- eISBN:
- 9780191604133
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/019929111X.003.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
This chapter outlines the theory of deliberative democracy and deliberative institutions, highlighting the legitimacy problems — to do with the scale of the deliberations and the motivation to ...
More
This chapter outlines the theory of deliberative democracy and deliberative institutions, highlighting the legitimacy problems — to do with the scale of the deliberations and the motivation to participate — as experienced by the organizers of a citizens’ jury in Leicester, England, in 2000. It explains the approach and methods, outlines the argument, and summarizes five cases of deliberation in the UK’s National Health Service.Less
This chapter outlines the theory of deliberative democracy and deliberative institutions, highlighting the legitimacy problems — to do with the scale of the deliberations and the motivation to participate — as experienced by the organizers of a citizens’ jury in Leicester, England, in 2000. It explains the approach and methods, outlines the argument, and summarizes five cases of deliberation in the UK’s National Health Service.
John Parkinson
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- September 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780199291113
- eISBN:
- 9780191604133
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/019929111X.003.0004
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
This chapter explores the ideas of representation, the first broad solution to the legitimacy problems in deliberative democracy. It considers the nature, strengths, and weaknesses of three different ...
More
This chapter explores the ideas of representation, the first broad solution to the legitimacy problems in deliberative democracy. It considers the nature, strengths, and weaknesses of three different types of representation claims made by participants in the cases, namely random selection, self-selection, and elected representation. It argues that elected representatives have the strongest claims simply because they can be removed from decision-making posts, but this strength depends on there being strong communicative relationships between representatives and the represented. It concludes that while representation claims are important, no one kind of representative has perfectly legitimate authority.Less
This chapter explores the ideas of representation, the first broad solution to the legitimacy problems in deliberative democracy. It considers the nature, strengths, and weaknesses of three different types of representation claims made by participants in the cases, namely random selection, self-selection, and elected representation. It argues that elected representatives have the strongest claims simply because they can be removed from decision-making posts, but this strength depends on there being strong communicative relationships between representatives and the represented. It concludes that while representation claims are important, no one kind of representative has perfectly legitimate authority.
John Parkinson
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- September 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780199291113
- eISBN:
- 9780191604133
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/019929111X.003.0005
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
This chapter discusses the second broad solution to the legitimacy problems: sharing arguments through the media. It sets out the structural features of the news media and shows how they filter out ...
More
This chapter discusses the second broad solution to the legitimacy problems: sharing arguments through the media. It sets out the structural features of the news media and shows how they filter out certain kinds of arguments and issues, using the example of a deliberative poll. It argues that successful argument sharing (or publicity) depends on the salience of the issue, but in such cases, small-scale deliberative processes can provide a useful focal point for coverage of all the arguments. ‘Manufacturing’ salience can lead to distortion of the issue and arguments.Less
This chapter discusses the second broad solution to the legitimacy problems: sharing arguments through the media. It sets out the structural features of the news media and shows how they filter out certain kinds of arguments and issues, using the example of a deliberative poll. It argues that successful argument sharing (or publicity) depends on the salience of the issue, but in such cases, small-scale deliberative processes can provide a useful focal point for coverage of all the arguments. ‘Manufacturing’ salience can lead to distortion of the issue and arguments.
John Parkinson
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- September 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780199291113
- eISBN:
- 9780191604133
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/019929111X.003.0007
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
This chapter summarizes the criteria for a legitimate deliberative democracy and assesses the different deliberative democratic models against those criteria. It points out that no single process can ...
More
This chapter summarizes the criteria for a legitimate deliberative democracy and assesses the different deliberative democratic models against those criteria. It points out that no single process can meet them all, thus criticizing the ‘minipublic’ approach. It suggests that a deliberative system approach is necessary, using different processes at different points of the decision making process. The outlines of such a scheme are described, linking activists in civil society and parliamentary processes with a variety of agenda-setting and decision-making tools.Less
This chapter summarizes the criteria for a legitimate deliberative democracy and assesses the different deliberative democratic models against those criteria. It points out that no single process can meet them all, thus criticizing the ‘minipublic’ approach. It suggests that a deliberative system approach is necessary, using different processes at different points of the decision making process. The outlines of such a scheme are described, linking activists in civil society and parliamentary processes with a variety of agenda-setting and decision-making tools.
Albert W. Dzur
- Published in print:
- 2012
- Published Online:
- September 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780199874095
- eISBN:
- 9780199980024
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199874095.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
Focusing contemporary democratic theory on the neglected topic of punishment, this book argues for increased civic engagement in criminal justice as an antidote to the American penal state. It ...
More
Focusing contemporary democratic theory on the neglected topic of punishment, this book argues for increased civic engagement in criminal justice as an antidote to the American penal state. It considers how the jury may serve as a participatory institution that gathers and utilizes citizen’s juridical capabilities rather than merely expressing unreflective public opinion. In doing so, the book resists trends in criminal justice scholarship holding citizen participation to blame for greater penal severity, and it rejects the longstanding skepticism of lay abilities in political theory. It distinguishes a mass politics mobilized superficially around single issues from more constructive citizen involvement that takes responsibility for public problems. This more positive view of citizen action was once a major justification for the jury trial and is now also manifest in the restorative justice movement, which has incorporated laypeople into community boards and sentencing circles. Jury trials and restorative justice programs are examples of rational disorganization, in which lay citizen action renders a process less efficient yet also contributes valuable qualities such as attunement, reflectiveness, and full-bodied communication. While restorative justice programs and participatory policy forums such as citizens’ juries have become attractive to reformers, traditional juries have suffered a deep decline. This book advocates a broader role for jurors in the criminal courts and more widespread use of jury trials. Though no panacea for a political culture grown too comfortable with criminalization and incarceration, participatory institutional designs that rationally disorganize punishment practices and slow down criminal justice can increase civic responsibility and public awareness about the need to conceive alternative paths forward.Less
Focusing contemporary democratic theory on the neglected topic of punishment, this book argues for increased civic engagement in criminal justice as an antidote to the American penal state. It considers how the jury may serve as a participatory institution that gathers and utilizes citizen’s juridical capabilities rather than merely expressing unreflective public opinion. In doing so, the book resists trends in criminal justice scholarship holding citizen participation to blame for greater penal severity, and it rejects the longstanding skepticism of lay abilities in political theory. It distinguishes a mass politics mobilized superficially around single issues from more constructive citizen involvement that takes responsibility for public problems. This more positive view of citizen action was once a major justification for the jury trial and is now also manifest in the restorative justice movement, which has incorporated laypeople into community boards and sentencing circles. Jury trials and restorative justice programs are examples of rational disorganization, in which lay citizen action renders a process less efficient yet also contributes valuable qualities such as attunement, reflectiveness, and full-bodied communication. While restorative justice programs and participatory policy forums such as citizens’ juries have become attractive to reformers, traditional juries have suffered a deep decline. This book advocates a broader role for jurors in the criminal courts and more widespread use of jury trials. Though no panacea for a political culture grown too comfortable with criminalization and incarceration, participatory institutional designs that rationally disorganize punishment practices and slow down criminal justice can increase civic responsibility and public awareness about the need to conceive alternative paths forward.
Luc Bovens and Stephan Hartmann
- Published in print:
- 2004
- Published Online:
- January 2005
- ISBN:
- 9780199269754
- eISBN:
- 9780191601705
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199269750.001.0001
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Metaphysics/Epistemology
Probabilistic models have much to offer to epistemology and philosophy of science. Arguably, the coherence theory of justification claims that the more coherent a set of propositions is, the more ...
More
Probabilistic models have much to offer to epistemology and philosophy of science. Arguably, the coherence theory of justification claims that the more coherent a set of propositions is, the more confident one ought to be in its content, ceteris paribus. An impossibility result shows that there cannot exist a coherence ordering. A coherence quasi-ordering can be constructed that respects this claim and is relevant to scientific-theory choice. Bayesian-Network models of the reliability of information sources are made applicable to Condorcet-style jury voting, Tversky and Kahneman’s Linda puzzle, the variety-of-evidence thesis, the Duhem–Quine thesis, and the informational value of testimony.Less
Probabilistic models have much to offer to epistemology and philosophy of science. Arguably, the coherence theory of justification claims that the more coherent a set of propositions is, the more confident one ought to be in its content, ceteris paribus. An impossibility result shows that there cannot exist a coherence ordering. A coherence quasi-ordering can be constructed that respects this claim and is relevant to scientific-theory choice. Bayesian-Network models of the reliability of information sources are made applicable to Condorcet-style jury voting, Tversky and Kahneman’s Linda puzzle, the variety-of-evidence thesis, the Duhem–Quine thesis, and the informational value of testimony.
Robert E. Goodin
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- September 2008
- ISBN:
- 9780199547944
- eISBN:
- 9780191720116
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199547944.003.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics, Political Theory
In recent years, democratic theory has taken a ‘deliberative’ turn. Deliberative democrats tell us, most fundamentally, that we should shun merely adding up votes in favour of talking together. What ...
More
In recent years, democratic theory has taken a ‘deliberative’ turn. Deliberative democrats tell us, most fundamentally, that we should shun merely adding up votes in favour of talking together. What especially distinguishes the deliberative democracy movement is its concern with finding ways of putting the theory into practice. A host of micro-deliberative innovations — Citizen's Juries, Consensus Conferences, Deliberative Polls — show us what deliberative democracy might look like in miniature.Less
In recent years, democratic theory has taken a ‘deliberative’ turn. Deliberative democrats tell us, most fundamentally, that we should shun merely adding up votes in favour of talking together. What especially distinguishes the deliberative democracy movement is its concern with finding ways of putting the theory into practice. A host of micro-deliberative innovations — Citizen's Juries, Consensus Conferences, Deliberative Polls — show us what deliberative democracy might look like in miniature.
Robert E. Goodin and John S. Dryzek
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- September 2008
- ISBN:
- 9780199547944
- eISBN:
- 9780191720116
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199547944.003.0002
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics, Political Theory
Democratic theorists often place deliberative innovations such as Citizen's Juries, Consensus Conferences, Planning Cells, and Deliberative Polls at the centre of their hopes for deliberative ...
More
Democratic theorists often place deliberative innovations such as Citizen's Juries, Consensus Conferences, Planning Cells, and Deliberative Polls at the centre of their hopes for deliberative democratization. This chapter charts the ways in which such mini-publics can impact on the ‘macro’ world of politics. Impact may come in the form of actually making policy, being taken up in the policy process, informing public debates, market-testing of proposals, legitimation of public policies, building confidence and constituencies for policies, popular oversight, and resisting co-option. Exposing problems and failures is all too easy; the chapter highlights instead cases of success along each of these dimensions.Less
Democratic theorists often place deliberative innovations such as Citizen's Juries, Consensus Conferences, Planning Cells, and Deliberative Polls at the centre of their hopes for deliberative democratization. This chapter charts the ways in which such mini-publics can impact on the ‘macro’ world of politics. Impact may come in the form of actually making policy, being taken up in the policy process, informing public debates, market-testing of proposals, legitimation of public policies, building confidence and constituencies for policies, popular oversight, and resisting co-option. Exposing problems and failures is all too easy; the chapter highlights instead cases of success along each of these dimensions.
Robert E. Goodin and Simon J. Niemeyer
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- September 2008
- ISBN:
- 9780199547944
- eISBN:
- 9780191720116
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199547944.003.0003
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics, Political Theory
Political deliberation involves both internal reflection and public discussion. The former might be far more important than implied by deliberative democrats' heavy emphasis the discursive component. ...
More
Political deliberation involves both internal reflection and public discussion. The former might be far more important than implied by deliberative democrats' heavy emphasis the discursive component. Analysis of the deliberations of a citizen's jury on an Australian environmental issue shows jurors' attitudes changing more in response to the ‘informational’ phase of the jury proceedings involving a large degree of ‘deliberation within’ than during the formal ‘discussion’ phase. Various ways can be imagined for evoking internal reflection of that sort, even in mass political settings.Less
Political deliberation involves both internal reflection and public discussion. The former might be far more important than implied by deliberative democrats' heavy emphasis the discursive component. Analysis of the deliberations of a citizen's jury on an Australian environmental issue shows jurors' attitudes changing more in response to the ‘informational’ phase of the jury proceedings involving a large degree of ‘deliberation within’ than during the formal ‘discussion’ phase. Various ways can be imagined for evoking internal reflection of that sort, even in mass political settings.
Robert E. Goodin
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- September 2008
- ISBN:
- 9780199547944
- eISBN:
- 9780191720116
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199547944.003.0004
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics, Political Theory
In its recent ‘deliberative’ turn, democratic theory has forgotten a conventional wisdom, once widely appreciated, that there is much in politics that is better not discussed. This chapter catalogues ...
More
In its recent ‘deliberative’ turn, democratic theory has forgotten a conventional wisdom, once widely appreciated, that there is much in politics that is better not discussed. This chapter catalogues what topics might be deemed ‘politically undiscussable’, and why, as a first step toward showing how and to what extent talking about such matters might help or hinder their resolution. One important way discussion helps is by information-pooling helping to establish the truth of the matter. Even where that is not a viable aspiration, discussion might nonetheless serve a ‘premise-revealing’ function, showing one another that we are reasonable agents and in that way helping to desensitize contentious issues.Less
In its recent ‘deliberative’ turn, democratic theory has forgotten a conventional wisdom, once widely appreciated, that there is much in politics that is better not discussed. This chapter catalogues what topics might be deemed ‘politically undiscussable’, and why, as a first step toward showing how and to what extent talking about such matters might help or hinder their resolution. One important way discussion helps is by information-pooling helping to establish the truth of the matter. Even where that is not a viable aspiration, discussion might nonetheless serve a ‘premise-revealing’ function, showing one another that we are reasonable agents and in that way helping to desensitize contentious issues.
Robert E. Goodin
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780199256174
- eISBN:
- 9780191599354
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199256179.003.0005
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
It is a long‐standing debate within political philosophy generally whether we want our political outcomes to be right or whether we want them to be fair; while democratic theory has traditionally ...
More
It is a long‐standing debate within political philosophy generally whether we want our political outcomes to be right or whether we want them to be fair; while democratic theory has traditionally taken the latter focus, democracy can be defended in the former way as well; how that can be done is the subject of this chapter and the next. For epistemic democrats, the aim of democracy is to ‘track the truth’, while for procedural democrats, the aim is to embody certain procedural virtues. When voters are choosing between only two options, both epistemic and procedural standards point in the same direction, and in that case, Condorcet's jury theorem reassures both epistemic and procedural democrats that the correct outcome is most likely to win a majority of votes; however, where there are three or more options on the table, recommendations of the different strands of democratic theory diverge. In these cases, plurality voting is arguably the simplest and possibly the most frequently used voting rule, and this chapter demonstrates that the Condorcet jury theorem can indeed be generalized from majority voting over two options to plurality voting over many options; other decision rules, Condorcet pairwise criteria, Borda count procedures, and the Hare and Coombs systems have also been shown to have considerable truth‐seeking powers. This chapter addresses the question of which of these alternative possible democratic decision rules are the most reliable truth‐tracker in the more general ‘many‐option’ case.Less
It is a long‐standing debate within political philosophy generally whether we want our political outcomes to be right or whether we want them to be fair; while democratic theory has traditionally taken the latter focus, democracy can be defended in the former way as well; how that can be done is the subject of this chapter and the next. For epistemic democrats, the aim of democracy is to ‘track the truth’, while for procedural democrats, the aim is to embody certain procedural virtues. When voters are choosing between only two options, both epistemic and procedural standards point in the same direction, and in that case, Condorcet's jury theorem reassures both epistemic and procedural democrats that the correct outcome is most likely to win a majority of votes; however, where there are three or more options on the table, recommendations of the different strands of democratic theory diverge. In these cases, plurality voting is arguably the simplest and possibly the most frequently used voting rule, and this chapter demonstrates that the Condorcet jury theorem can indeed be generalized from majority voting over two options to plurality voting over many options; other decision rules, Condorcet pairwise criteria, Borda count procedures, and the Hare and Coombs systems have also been shown to have considerable truth‐seeking powers. This chapter addresses the question of which of these alternative possible democratic decision rules are the most reliable truth‐tracker in the more general ‘many‐option’ case.
Christopher Ansell and Jane Gingrich
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- February 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780199264995
- eISBN:
- 9780191603259
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199264996.003.0008
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics
This chapter investigates reforms that arguably produce more direct forms of accountability and citizen participation in administrative agencies. A first type of reform is part of a larger trend to ...
More
This chapter investigates reforms that arguably produce more direct forms of accountability and citizen participation in administrative agencies. A first type of reform is part of a larger trend to decentralize aspects of administrative accountability, which includes New Public Management reforms designed to make agencies more responsive to their “customers.” A second type of reform, increasingly widespread, involves the creation of legal frameworks for pursuing grievances and ensuring representation, such as ombudsman systems and administrative procedure laws. Finally, a third type involves direct attempts to increase deliberation, using informal strategies of collaborative governance between public agencies and stakeholders particularly. These are particularly common at the local level. A wide of variety of other new techniques designed to enhance participation and democratic deliberation — such as citizen juries and consensus conferences — are increasingly popular, though they remain largely experimental.Less
This chapter investigates reforms that arguably produce more direct forms of accountability and citizen participation in administrative agencies. A first type of reform is part of a larger trend to decentralize aspects of administrative accountability, which includes New Public Management reforms designed to make agencies more responsive to their “customers.” A second type of reform, increasingly widespread, involves the creation of legal frameworks for pursuing grievances and ensuring representation, such as ombudsman systems and administrative procedure laws. Finally, a third type involves direct attempts to increase deliberation, using informal strategies of collaborative governance between public agencies and stakeholders particularly. These are particularly common at the local level. A wide of variety of other new techniques designed to enhance participation and democratic deliberation — such as citizen juries and consensus conferences — are increasingly popular, though they remain largely experimental.
Brian H. Bornstein and Monica K. Miller
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- September 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780195328677
- eISBN:
- 9780199869954
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195328677.003.002
- Subject:
- Psychology, Forensic Psychology
Some attorneys rely on “folklore” or personal hunches when selecting a jury, while others use a more scientific route, taking advice from trial advocacy and jury selection books that provide ...
More
Some attorneys rely on “folklore” or personal hunches when selecting a jury, while others use a more scientific route, taking advice from trial advocacy and jury selection books that provide information on selecting a favorable jury. Either method could result in the selection of a jury based on potential jurors' demographic characteristics, including religious characteristics. Additionally, legislative acts have affected the religious makeup of juries throughout U.S. history. Laws or legal procedures make it unlikely or impossible for members of some minority religions to be selected. In recent decades, legislation has been established which makes it unconstitutional to exclude individuals from jury duty based on their religion. Other laws allow some citizens to opt out of jury service on the basis of their religion. As a whole, this chapter highlights the legal debate surrounding procedures that affect the religious make up of the jury.Less
Some attorneys rely on “folklore” or personal hunches when selecting a jury, while others use a more scientific route, taking advice from trial advocacy and jury selection books that provide information on selecting a favorable jury. Either method could result in the selection of a jury based on potential jurors' demographic characteristics, including religious characteristics. Additionally, legislative acts have affected the religious makeup of juries throughout U.S. history. Laws or legal procedures make it unlikely or impossible for members of some minority religions to be selected. In recent decades, legislation has been established which makes it unconstitutional to exclude individuals from jury duty based on their religion. Other laws allow some citizens to opt out of jury service on the basis of their religion. As a whole, this chapter highlights the legal debate surrounding procedures that affect the religious make up of the jury.
Brian H. Bornstein and Monica K. Miller
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- September 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780195328677
- eISBN:
- 9780199869954
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195328677.003.005
- Subject:
- Psychology, Forensic Psychology
The research discussed in earlier chapters indicates that religious affiliation and a variety of religious beliefs can affect legal attitudes and behavior, such as juror decision making. It is ...
More
The research discussed in earlier chapters indicates that religious affiliation and a variety of religious beliefs can affect legal attitudes and behavior, such as juror decision making. It is possible, however, that the group discussion process may neutralize the effects of any particular juror's beliefs, such that religious beliefs influence a juror's individual judgment, but not the jury's final verdict. Nevertheless, there is concern that religion will alter the deliberation process. For instance, jurors may mention their religious beliefs, cite scripture during deliberation, pray, or consult with pastors. Courts are divided about whether it is appropriate for jurors to do these religious activities and whether such jury behavior constitutes misconduct that necessitates a new trial. This chapter considers the role of jurors'religion in their deliberations, an issue that has been raised in numerous recent cases.Less
The research discussed in earlier chapters indicates that religious affiliation and a variety of religious beliefs can affect legal attitudes and behavior, such as juror decision making. It is possible, however, that the group discussion process may neutralize the effects of any particular juror's beliefs, such that religious beliefs influence a juror's individual judgment, but not the jury's final verdict. Nevertheless, there is concern that religion will alter the deliberation process. For instance, jurors may mention their religious beliefs, cite scripture during deliberation, pray, or consult with pastors. Courts are divided about whether it is appropriate for jurors to do these religious activities and whether such jury behavior constitutes misconduct that necessitates a new trial. This chapter considers the role of jurors'religion in their deliberations, an issue that has been raised in numerous recent cases.
Patricia J. Bailey and Sheri H. Mecklenburg
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- September 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780195331974
- eISBN:
- 9780199868193
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331974.003.010
- Subject:
- Psychology, Forensic Psychology
This chapter discusses the admissibility of eyewitness expert testimony under Daubert standards. It explores the scientific reliability of the laboratory experiments underlying eyewitness expert ...
More
This chapter discusses the admissibility of eyewitness expert testimony under Daubert standards. It explores the scientific reliability of the laboratory experiments underlying eyewitness expert opinions, and their applicability to assessing real world witnesses. It examines common eyewitness expert opinions, and demonstrate that these opinions often are neither scientifically reliable nor generally accepted. The chapter then discusses the relevance of eyewitness expert testimony to jury assessment of real witnesses, and whether such testimony is beyond the ken of the jury. It discusses jurors' understanding of the fallibility of eyewitness identification in this post-DNA world. Relying upon a recent survey, the chapter demonstrates potential jurors' general understanding of the issues which may affect eyewitness testimony, and discusses how the trial process can refine that understanding. Finally, it discusses how eyewitness expert testimony may actually confuse, rather than assist, jurors.Less
This chapter discusses the admissibility of eyewitness expert testimony under Daubert standards. It explores the scientific reliability of the laboratory experiments underlying eyewitness expert opinions, and their applicability to assessing real world witnesses. It examines common eyewitness expert opinions, and demonstrate that these opinions often are neither scientifically reliable nor generally accepted. The chapter then discusses the relevance of eyewitness expert testimony to jury assessment of real witnesses, and whether such testimony is beyond the ken of the jury. It discusses jurors' understanding of the fallibility of eyewitness identification in this post-DNA world. Relying upon a recent survey, the chapter demonstrates potential jurors' general understanding of the issues which may affect eyewitness testimony, and discusses how the trial process can refine that understanding. Finally, it discusses how eyewitness expert testimony may actually confuse, rather than assist, jurors.
Stephanos Bibas
- Published in print:
- 2012
- Published Online:
- May 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780195374681
- eISBN:
- 9780199933204
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195374681.001.0001
- Subject:
- Law, Criminal Law and Criminology
Two centuries ago the criminal justice system was primarily run by laymen. In court, victims and defendants interacted face to face while lay jurors from the community sat in judgment. Jury trials ...
More
Two centuries ago the criminal justice system was primarily run by laymen. In court, victims and defendants interacted face to face while lay jurors from the community sat in judgment. Jury trials passed moral judgment on crimes, vindicated victims and innocent defendants, denounced guilty defendants, and reconciled and healed wounded relationships. But over the last two centuries, lawyers have taken over the process, silencing victims and defendants and, in many cases, substituting a plea-bargaining system for voice of the jury. This lawyerized machinery has purchased efficient, speedy processing of many cases at the price of sacrificing softer values, such as reforming defendants and healing wounded victims and relationships. In other words, the U.S. legal system has bought quantity at the price of quality, without recognizing either the trade-off or the great gulf separating lawyers' and laymen's incentives, interests, values, and powers. This
book explores these trends and considers how criminal justice could better accommodate lay participation, values, and relationships.Less
Two centuries ago the criminal justice system was primarily run by laymen. In court, victims and defendants interacted face to face while lay jurors from the community sat in judgment. Jury trials passed moral judgment on crimes, vindicated victims and innocent defendants, denounced guilty defendants, and reconciled and healed wounded relationships. But over the last two centuries, lawyers have taken over the process, silencing victims and defendants and, in many cases, substituting a plea-bargaining system for voice of the jury. This lawyerized machinery has purchased efficient, speedy processing of many cases at the price of sacrificing softer values, such as reforming defendants and healing wounded victims and relationships. In other words, the U.S. legal system has bought quantity at the price of quality, without recognizing either the trade-off or the great gulf separating lawyers' and laymen's incentives, interests, values, and powers. This
book explores these trends and considers how criminal justice could better accommodate lay participation, values, and relationships.
Frank Fischer
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- May 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199282838
- eISBN:
- 9780191712487
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199282838.003.0004
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics
This chapter examines deliberative democratic theory and various deliberative experiments that can inform it. It illustrates how these efforts pose questions of expertise and complexity that have yet ...
More
This chapter examines deliberative democratic theory and various deliberative experiments that can inform it. It illustrates how these efforts pose questions of expertise and complexity that have yet to be adequately taken into account. Deliberative democratic theory, largely abstract and impractical, has mainly neglected — if not ignored — these problems and their implications. At the same time, a parallel body of experimental research is shown to have usefully worked out practical deliberative designs. While these contributions generally recognize the need for expertise, they too have failed to move beyond the standard understandings of expertise which has long hindered citizen participation. Emphasizing the expert-citizen relationship, the discussion points to the need to bring both of these theoretical and practical pursuits together in a more fruitful interaction.Less
This chapter examines deliberative democratic theory and various deliberative experiments that can inform it. It illustrates how these efforts pose questions of expertise and complexity that have yet to be adequately taken into account. Deliberative democratic theory, largely abstract and impractical, has mainly neglected — if not ignored — these problems and their implications. At the same time, a parallel body of experimental research is shown to have usefully worked out practical deliberative designs. While these contributions generally recognize the need for expertise, they too have failed to move beyond the standard understandings of expertise which has long hindered citizen participation. Emphasizing the expert-citizen relationship, the discussion points to the need to bring both of these theoretical and practical pursuits together in a more fruitful interaction.
