Arkes Hal R, Mellers Barbara A
Department of Psychology and Center for HOPES, Ohio State University, 240N Lazenby Hall, 1827 Neil Avenue Mall, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA.
Law Hum Behav. 2002 Dec;26(6):625-39. doi: 10.1023/a:1020929517312.
Surveys of public opinion indicate that people have high expectations for juries. When it comes to serious crimes, most people want errors of convicting the innocent (false positives) or acquitting the guilty (false negatives) to fall well below 10%. Using expected utility theory, Bayes' Theorem, signal detection theory, and empirical evidence from detection studies of medical decision making, eyewitness testimony, and weather forecasting, we argue that the frequency of mistakes probably far exceeds these "tolerable" levels. We are not arguing against the use of juries. Rather, we point out that a closer look at jury decisions reveals a serious gap between what we expect from juries and what probably occurs. When deciding issues of guilt and/or punishing convicted criminals, we as a society should recognize and acknowledge the abundance of error.
民意调查表明，人们对陪审团抱有很高的期望。在涉及严重犯罪时，大多数人希望误判无辜者（假阳性）或放走有罪者（假阴性）的错误率远低于10%。运用期望效用理论、贝叶斯定理、信号检测理论以及来自医学决策、目击证人证词和天气预报检测研究的实证证据，我们认为错误发生的频率可能远远超过这些“可容忍”的水平。我们并非反对使用陪审团。相反，我们指出，仔细审视陪审团的裁决会发现，我们对陪审团的期望与实际可能发生的情况之间存在严重差距。在判定有罪问题和/或惩罚已定罪罪犯时，作为一个社会，我们应该认识并承认存在大量错误。
