Inquiry and Deliberation in Judicial Systems: The Problem of Jury Size

Angere, Staffan; Olsson, Erik J; Genot, Emmanuel

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-20762-9_3

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, as noted in the introduction, other models have shown no positive effect from a requirement of unanimity (Tanford & Penrod 1983;List 2004;Austen-Smith & Banks 1996;Angere et al 2016). Our results, which incorporate diversity in ways that those models do not, show that unanimous juries do have an importantly higher success rate across all the conditions considered.…”

Section: 3supporting

confidence: 63%

“…They propose an explanation in terms of information cascades. On the basis of an agentbased model, Angere et al (2016) concludes that "while it is in principle better to have a larger jury," the value of having more than 12-15 jurors is likely to be minimal. Given assumptions of honest information and with jury deliberation modeled as a random walk, Helland & Raviv (2008) concludes on the basis of cost considerations that the optimal number of jurors is one.…”

Section: Jury Sizementioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the basis of an agent-based model, Angere et al (2016) conclude that "no more than a >50% majority should be required for a conviction, even in criminal cases. "…”

Section: 8mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Epistemic Role of Diversity in Juries: An Agent-Based Model

Grim,

Singer,

Bramson

et al. 2024

JASSS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many factors contribute to whether juries reach right verdicts. Here we focus on the role of diversity. Direct empirical studies of the effect of altering factors in jury deliberation are severely limited for conceptual, practical, and ethical reasons. Using an agent-based model to avoid these difficulties, we argue that diversity can play at least four importantly different roles in affecting jury verdicts. We show that where different subgroups have access to different information, equal representation can strengthen epistemic jury success, and if one subgroup has access to particularly strong evidence, epistemic success may demand participation by that group. Diversity can also reduce the redundancy of the information on which a jury focuses, which can have a positive impact. Finally, and most surprisingly, we show that limiting communication between diverse groups in juries can favor epistemic success as well.

show abstract

Section: 3supporting

confidence: 63%

Section: Jury Sizementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Epistemic Role of Diversity in Juries: An Agent-Based Model

Grim,

Singer,

Bramson

et al. 2024

JASSS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Costa-Font (2020). 2 The Laputa model has been applied to a number of other problems in epistemology, such as norms of assertion (Olsson and Vallinder 2013a), the argument from disagreement (Vallinder and Olsson 2013b), the problem of jury size in law (Angere et al 2015) and peer disagreement (Olsson 2018). 3 Collins et al (2018) examined, theoretically and empirically, the implications of using, in the spirit of Laputa, message content as a cue to source reliability.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fake News, Conspiracy Theorizing, and Intellectual Vice

Meyer¹,

Alfano²

2022

Social Virtue Epistemology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This collection of 19 chapters, all appearing in print here for the first time and written by an international team of established and emerging scholars, explores the place of intellectual virtues and vices in a social world. Relevant virtues include open-mindedness, curiosity, intellectual courage, diligence in inquiry, and the like. Relevant vices include dogmatism, need for immediate certainty, and gullibility and the like.The chapters are divided into four key sections: Foundational Issues; Individual Virtues; Collective Virtues; and Methods and Measurements. And the chapters explore the most salient questions in these areas of research, including: How are individual intellectual virtues and vices affected by their social contexts? Does being in touch with other openminded people make us more open-minded? Conversely, does connection to other dogmatic people make us more dogmatic? Can groups possess virtues and vices distinct from those of their members? For instance, could a group of dogmatic individuals operate in an open-minded way despite the vices of its members?Each chapter receives commentary from two other authors in the volume, and each original author then replies to these commentaries. Together, the authors form part of a collective conversation about how we can know about what we know. In so doing, they not only theorize but enact social virtue epistemology.

show abstract

“…4 5 In the following, I will use the terminology in Pallavicini et al (2018) regarding polarization and related concepts. Thus, "polarization", as the term is often used in social epistemology to denote the 4 Since the Laputa model was first described (Olsson, 2011) it has been applied to a number of issues in epistemology, such as norms of assertion Vallinder, 2013, Angere andOlsson, 2017), the argument from disagreement (Vallinder and Olsson, 2013a), the epistemic value of overconfidence (Vallinder and Olsson, 2013b), the problem of jury size in law (Angere, Olsson and Genot, 2015), peer disagreement (Olsson, 2018) and the epistemic effect of network structure Olsson, 2017, Hahn, Hansson andOlsson, 2018). 5 Collins et al (2018) examined, theoretically and empirically, the implications of using message content as a cue to source reliability in the spirit of Laputa.…”

Section: Background On Laputa and Polarizationmentioning

confidence: 99%