Civic Awakening in the Jury Room: A Test of the Connection between Jury Deliberation and Political Participation

Abstract

Deliberative democratic theory posits that civic discussion leads to increased involvement in public affairs. To test this claim, this study explored the link between jury deliberation and electoral participation. It was hypothesized that empanelled jurors who reach verdicts are more likely to vote in subsequent elections than empanelled jurors who fail to reach a verdict or even begin deliberations. Data collected in Thurston County, Washington, supported this hypothesis. Controlling for other trial features and past voting frequency, citizens who served on a criminal jury that reached a verdict were more likely to vote in subsequent elections than were those jurors who deadlocked, were dismissed during trial, or merely served as alternates.

Deliberative Democracy and the American Civil Jury

“…As we noted above, however, it is likely that deliberation interacts with the structural variables of jury size and decision rule. These potential interactions were hidden in the previous Gastil et al (2002Gastil et al ( , 2008Gastil et al ( , 2010 analyses of criminal juries because of the largely invariant 12-person unanimous nature of criminal jury decision making.…”

“…John Gastil and his collaborators undertook a systematic test of the civic engagement effects of jury service in a substantial study examining jury service and voting rates (Gastil et al 2002(Gastil et al , 2010). An initial study in Thurston County, Washington, used pre-and postjury service voting records of approximately 800 residents who had served as jurors in criminal trials.…”

“…Not surprisingly, a juror's voting record before jury duty was a strong predictor of the juror's voting record after jury duty; however, what happened during jury service also made a difference. Those who deliberated and reached a verdict-that is, had a conclusive experience-voted more frequently after their service, compared to those empanelled jurors whose trials were dismissed, who served as alternates, or were on hung juries that could not reach a verdict (Gastil et al 2002). Consistent with prior research on deliberation's potential for civic impact (Jacobs et al 2009;Pincock 2012), the study found that a conclusive experience of deliberation provided a civic spark that manifested as an increase in voting rates even years after completing one's service.…”

Entity/Event-Level Sentiment Detection and Inference

“…Deliberative democratic theory posits that civic discussion yields to increased involvement in public affairs (Gastil et al 2002). Thus, deliberation can produce more sophisticated, tolerant, and participative citizens (Luskin and Fishkin 1998, Gastil and Dillard 1999a, Fung 2001, Fung and Wright 2001, Sulkin and Simon 2001, Gastil et al 2002, Walsh 2004). …”

Rashomon Comes to the Courtroom: The Adoption of the Lay Judge System in Japan, Its Impact on Jurisprudence, and the Implications for Civic Engagement

“…Research on jury systems has long spoken to the democracy-enhancing potential and the civic educational benefits of involving citizens in the judicial process. Recent scholarship in the United States has examined the effect of juror service on individuals who have participated, finding that the experience alters the way that persons view themselves and their place within civil society, as well as their tendency to be active participants within society (Gastil et al 2002;Gastil et al 2008;). Yet scholarly work examining other methods that employ laypersons at trial -including the mixed-tribunal systems of Europe -and the resultant political and social consequences within those countries make up only a small fraction of the literature on jury systems (Hans 2003; Anderson & Nolan 2004, 932); beyond the United States, it remains astonishingly difficult to learn about other countries' jury systems.…”