The Jury and Democratic Theory

Abramson, Jeffrey

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.1993.tb00003.x

Cited by 46 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The difference is subtle but real. 59 The use of stratified random sampling in the UK and USA is thus controversial, but seems to be necessary where the jury process involves so few individuals (between 12 and 24). Such small numbers of citizens will also likely have a negative impact on the variety of backgrounds and experiences that jurors are able to draw on.…”

Section: Inclusivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Citizens' Juries and Deliberative Democracy

Smith

Wales²

2000

Political Studies

374

228

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the face of widespread dissatisfaction with contemporary democratic practice, there has been a growing interest in theories of deliberative democracy. However theorists have often failed to sufficiently address the question of institutional design. This paper argues that recent experiments with citizens' juries should be of interest to deliberative democrats. The practice of citizens' juries is considered in light of three deliberative democratic criteria: inclusivity, deliberation and citizenship. It is argued that citizens' juries offer important insights into how democratic deliberation could be institutionalized in contemporary political decision-making processes.The growing interest in forms of deliberative democracy indicates, on the one hand, a widespread dissatisfaction with aspects of our contemporary political practices and, on the other hand, a reflective awareness that alternative practices are plausible options for us. Within contemporary democratic theory, there is an emerging concern with the growing difference and distance between the subjectivity, motives and intentions of citizens and the political decisions made in their name. 2 The activities, backgrounds and interests of political representatives are seen as far removed from the lives and perspectives of citizens. Although periodic elections act as 'a continuous discipline on the elected to take constant notice of public opinion', 3 the mandate that representatives enjoy extends over a period within which citizens have very little impact on decisions made in their name. The principal-agent form of representation, so dominant within liberal democracies, rests on the fact that the political representative is able to deliberate and decide for others. 4 But, critics contend that the lack of presence or 'voice' of the politically marginalized, such as women and ethnic minorities, in political decision making means that their interests and perspectives are systematically excluded or at least not adequately addressed. As Phillips argues, 'when policies are worked out for rather than with a politically excluded constituency, they are unlikely to engage with all relevant concerns '. 5 Clearly political activity and influence extends beyond voting, and contemporary society is marked by a plurality of interest groups and associations. However such pluralism is undermined by the social and economic imbalances inherent within society. Expressions of economic power and social influence undermine, to a large extent, the assumption of political equality on which representative forms are frequently defended. 6 As Beetham argues: 'The freedoms of speech and association not only provide the guarantee of a more extensive political activity than the vote;

show abstract

Section: Inclusivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Citizens' Juries and Deliberative Democracy

Smith

Wales²

2000

Political Studies

374

228

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Philosophy of Legal Proof

Ross

2024

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Criminal courts make decisions that can remove the liberty and even life of those accused. Civil trials can cause the bankruptcy of companies employing thousands of people, asylum seekers being deported, or children being placed into state care. Selecting the right standards when deciding legal cases is of utmost importance in giving those affected a fair deal. This Element is an introduction to the philosophy of legal proof. It is organised around five questions. First, it introduces the standards of proof and considers what justifies them. Second, it discusses whether we should use different standards in different cases. Third, it asks whether trials should end only in binary outcomes or use more fine-grained or precise verdicts. Fourth, it considers whether proof is simply about probability, concentrating on the famous 'Proof Paradox'. Finally, it examines who should be trusted with deciding trials, focusing on the jury system.

show abstract

The people as judge

Rosanvallon¹,

Goldhammer²

2008

Counter-Democracy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Jury and Democratic Theory

Cited by 46 publications

References 0 publications

Citizens' Juries and Deliberative Democracy

Citizens' Juries and Deliberative Democracy

The Philosophy of Legal Proof

The people as judge

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About