Department of Psychology, Chungbuk National University, Mt. 48 Gaeshin-dong, Cheongju City, Chungbuk, Republic of Korea,
Law Hum Behav. 2011 Aug;35(4):288-305. doi: 10.1007/s10979-010-9240-6.
This article advances a method based on standard test theories and measurement models to determine correct verdicts for jury trials, and to estimate juror accuracy, juror ability, and trial difficulty (and the relationships among them). With five vignette cases and 1,318 juror eligible adults as the subjects, the model consistently identified verdicts that accorded with the judge's instructions on the law as correct. With the correct verdicts, the strength of the relationship between juror accuracy and juror ability was found to be substantial. These findings suggest that the assumption of equivalent accuracy of jurors underlying the Condorcet's jury theorem (Condorcet, Essai sur l'Application de l'Analyse a la Probabilite des Decisions Rendues a la Pluralite des Voix, Paris, 1785) may be untenable for general cases where jurors of diverse dispositions and abilities serve together; and that the role of juror ability in determining the accuracy of legal decisions could be more significant than that of attitudes and values because, unlike attitudes and values, ability could affect juror's legal decisions regardless of the type of the case.
本文提出了一种基于标准测试理论和测量模型的方法,以确定陪审团审判的正确裁决,并估计陪审员的准确性、陪审员的能力和审判的难度(以及它们之间的关系)。该模型使用五个案例和 1318 名符合条件的成年陪审员作为研究对象,一致地识别出符合法官法律指示的正确裁决。在正确的裁决中,发现陪审员准确性和陪审员能力之间的关系强度是实质性的。这些发现表明,陪审团定理(康多塞,《对多数票裁决的概率分析的应用的尝试》,巴黎,1785 年)中基于陪审员准确性等同的假设可能在一般情况下是站不住脚的,因为不同性格和能力的陪审员一起服务;并且,在确定法律决策的准确性方面,陪审员的能力可能比态度和价值观更为重要,因为与态度和价值观不同,能力可以影响陪审员的法律决策,而不论案件的类型如何。