Jones Angela M, Jones Shayne E, Duron Aaron
School of Criminal Justice, Texas State University, San Marcos, USA.
Psychiatr Psychol Law. 2018 Jul 1;26(1):87-96. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2018.1483274. eCollection 2019.
Classic studies on judge-juror agreement have converged on the finding that judges and jurors agree on the outcomes in most cases (71-75%). This study extends these findings by comparing trial process evaluations of judges, jurors and litigants in actual civil trials. The results suggest that judges and juries largely overlap in their perceptions of trial process measures (e.g. case complexity). However, judicial and jury perceptions often differ from litigants' perceptions. The way in which different perspectives of the trial process predict satisfaction with the outcome is also explored. Litigant, but not judicial or jury, perceptions of the trial process were found to predict satisfaction. These results support past research concerning judge-juror agreement, but suggest there is less agreement between objective (i.e. judges and jurors) and subjective (i.e. litigants) perspectives of the trial process.
在大多数案件中（71%-75%），法官和陪审员在判决结果上意见一致。本研究通过比较实际民事审判中法官、陪审员和诉讼当事人对审判过程的评价，拓展了这些发现。结果表明，法官和陪审团在对审判过程指标（如案件复杂性）的认知上基本一致。然而，司法人员和陪审团的认知往往与诉讼当事人的认知不同。研究还探讨了审判过程的不同视角对结果满意度的预测方式。结果发现，只有诉讼当事人对审判过程的认知能够预测满意度，而法官和陪审团对审判过程的认知则不能。这些结果支持了以往关于法官与陪审员一致性的研究，但表明在审判过程的客观视角（即法官和陪审员）和主观视角（即诉讼当事人）之间，一致性较低。
