#87: How Juries Decide with Mikaela Spruill

Opinion Science

Conteúdo fornecido por Andy Luttrell. Todo o conteúdo do podcast, incluindo episódios, gráficos e descrições de podcast, é carregado e fornecido diretamente por Andy Luttrell ou por seu parceiro de plataforma de podcast. Se você acredita que alguém está usando seu trabalho protegido por direitos autorais sem sua permissão, siga o processo descrito aqui https://pt.player.fm/legal.

11M ago 56:01

MP3•Home de episódios

Mikaela Spruill studies juries and the legal system’s role in sustaining social inequalities. She’s a postdoctoral fellow in criminal justice with SPARQ at Stanford University. In our conversation, Mikaela shares the benefits and drawbacks of juries in the courtroom, how scientists study jury decision-making, and how jurors apply very specific legal standards to interpreting the facts of a case.
Things that come up in this episode

A very brief history of juries (Alschuler & Deiss, 1994; Carey, 1994; Massachusetts Office of Jury Commissioner)
A summary of early research in jury decision-making (Devine et al., 2001) and the University of Chicago Jury Project (Broeder, 1959; Cornwell, 2010)
The quick clip in the intro (“I’m just saying a coincidence is possible”) is from the 1957 film, 12 Angry Men.
A summary of research on jury decision-making (Spruill & Hans, in press)
How jurors apply the “objectively reasonable” standard to interpreting the facts of a case (Spruill & Lewis, 2022; 2023)

For a transcript of this episode, visit this episode's page at: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episodes/
Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.

139 episódios

#Science #Social Sciences #Psychology #Opinions #Persuasion #Communication #Social Psychology #Public Opinion #Podcasting Education #Andy Luttrell