Affiliation:
1. London School of Economics
Abstract
Research on jury deliberation tends to focus on deliberative outcomes, such as verdict decisions. Less attention is paid to the actual process of deliberation. This paper analyzes a video recording of a mock jury deliberation in a simulated criminal trial, focusing on facial expression, gesture, and discourse. Drawing on ethnomethodology and micro-sociological theories of ritual, I examine how jurors make sense of the evidence presented to them and how they work together to collectively produce a coherent narrative of events. I argue that a focus on the ritual dynamics of the deliberation help to understand how such a co-production can occur. La investigación sobre la deliberación del jurado tiende a centrarse en los resultados de esa deliberación, como pueden ser los veredictos. Menos atención genera el proceso mismo de deliberación. Este artículo analiza una grabación de vídeo de la deliberación de un jurado en un simulacro de juicio penal, y se fija especialmente en las expresiones faciales, los gestos y los discursos. Basándome en la etnometodología y en teorías de ritual microsociológicas, examino la forma en que los jurados buscan el sentido de las pruebas que se les presentan y la forma en que trabajan juntos para producir una narración coherente de los hechos. Argumento que poner el énfasis en las dinámicas rituales de la deliberación ayuda a entender cómo se realiza esa producción colectiva.
Funder
Criminology Research Advisory Council, Australian Institute of Criminology
Publisher
Onati International Institute for the Sociology of Law
Subject
Law,Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
Reference83 articles.
1. Atkinson, J.M., and Heritage, J., eds., 1984. Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
2. Bennet, W.L., and Feldman, M., 1981. Reconstructing Reality in the Courtroom: Justice and Judgment in American Culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
3. Bornstein, B.H., 1999. The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and human Behavior [online], 23(1), pp. 75-91. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022326807441 [Accessed 24 May 2019].
4. Bornstein, B.H., and McCabe, S.G., 2005. Jurors of the absurd-the role of consequentiality in jury simulation research. Florida State University Law Review [online], 32(2), p. 443. Available from: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol32/iss2/7 [Accessed 24 May 2019].
5. Bornstein, B.H., et al., 2017. Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior [online], 41(1), p. 13. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000223 [Accessed 24 May 2019].
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献