陪审团中被判重罪的公民:同行评判的争论

IF 5 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Andrei Poama, Briana McGinnis
{"title":"陪审团中被判重罪的公民:同行评判的争论","authors":"Andrei Poama,&nbsp;Briana McGinnis","doi":"10.1111/ajps.12816","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Currently, almost all polities that allow for jury trials deprive people with felony convictions of their right to serve as jurors on criminal trials. Against these exclusionary practices, we contend that there are epistemic and political reasons to enable (and not merely allow) convicted felony defendants to serve as jurors. These reasons are derived from the ideal of peer judgment, which we take to be deeply ingrained in and relevant for ensuring fair jury-judgment practices. In this article, we construct an account of peer judgment understood as equal subjection to coercive law, spell out the epistemic dimension of this account, and use it to argue that there are stronger reasons for having people with felony convictions serve as jurors, as compared to average, noncriminalized citizens. Our peer-judgment argument is meant to both weaken and outweigh current justifications for excluding people with felony convictions from jury service.</p>","PeriodicalId":48447,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ajps.12816","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Citizens with Felony Convictions in the Jury Box: A Peer-Judgment Argument\",\"authors\":\"Andrei Poama,&nbsp;Briana McGinnis\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ajps.12816\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Currently, almost all polities that allow for jury trials deprive people with felony convictions of their right to serve as jurors on criminal trials. Against these exclusionary practices, we contend that there are epistemic and political reasons to enable (and not merely allow) convicted felony defendants to serve as jurors. These reasons are derived from the ideal of peer judgment, which we take to be deeply ingrained in and relevant for ensuring fair jury-judgment practices. In this article, we construct an account of peer judgment understood as equal subjection to coercive law, spell out the epistemic dimension of this account, and use it to argue that there are stronger reasons for having people with felony convictions serve as jurors, as compared to average, noncriminalized citizens. Our peer-judgment argument is meant to both weaken and outweigh current justifications for excluding people with felony convictions from jury service.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48447,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Political Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ajps.12816\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Political Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajps.12816\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajps.12816","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目前,几乎所有允许陪审团审判的政体都剥夺了重罪定罪者在刑事审判中担任陪审员的权利。针对这些排斥性做法,我们认为有认识论和政治上的理由允许(而不仅仅是允许)被判定犯有重罪的被告人担任陪审员。这些理由源于同侪评判的理想,我们认为这种理想根深蒂固,与确保公平的陪审团评判实践息息相关。在本文中,我们构建了一个将同侪评判理解为平等地服从强制性法律的论述,阐明了这一论述的认识论维度,并以此论证,与普通的、未被定罪的公民相比,有更充分的理由让被判定犯有重罪的人担任陪审员。我 們 的 同 儕 判 斷 論 點 旨 在 削 弱 和 壓 倒 目 前 排 除 有 重 罪 判 罪 紀 錄 的 人 出 任 陪 審 員 的 理 據 。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Citizens with Felony Convictions in the Jury Box: A Peer-Judgment Argument

Currently, almost all polities that allow for jury trials deprive people with felony convictions of their right to serve as jurors on criminal trials. Against these exclusionary practices, we contend that there are epistemic and political reasons to enable (and not merely allow) convicted felony defendants to serve as jurors. These reasons are derived from the ideal of peer judgment, which we take to be deeply ingrained in and relevant for ensuring fair jury-judgment practices. In this article, we construct an account of peer judgment understood as equal subjection to coercive law, spell out the epistemic dimension of this account, and use it to argue that there are stronger reasons for having people with felony convictions serve as jurors, as compared to average, noncriminalized citizens. Our peer-judgment argument is meant to both weaken and outweigh current justifications for excluding people with felony convictions from jury service.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.30
自引率
2.40%
发文量
61
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) publishes research in all major areas of political science including American politics, public policy, international relations, comparative politics, political methodology, and political theory. Founded in 1956, the AJPS publishes articles that make outstanding contributions to scholarly knowledge about notable theoretical concerns, puzzles or controversies in any subfield of political science.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信