无效陪审团的神话

IF 2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Nancy S. Marder
{"title":"无效陪审团的神话","authors":"Nancy S. Marder","doi":"10.4324/9781315085401-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Jury nullification, an issue that has received much public attention, has been used loosely to describe verdicts with which members of the press and public disagree. One aim of this article is to explain what nullification is and to identify and describe three different situations in which nullification is likely to arise. Another aim is to offer two conceptions of the jury before assessing whether nullification is helpful or harmful to the judicial system. One conception, \"a conventional view,\" largely held by judges, regards the jury as a fact-finding body and little more. My own conception, which I have labeled \"a process view,\" envisions a much broader role for the jury, including interpretive and political functions. Under this broader view of the jury, nullification is not always harmful, as it is under the conventional view, but is even beneficial.","PeriodicalId":47587,"journal":{"name":"Northwestern University Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"25","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Myth of the Nullifying Jury\",\"authors\":\"Nancy S. Marder\",\"doi\":\"10.4324/9781315085401-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Jury nullification, an issue that has received much public attention, has been used loosely to describe verdicts with which members of the press and public disagree. One aim of this article is to explain what nullification is and to identify and describe three different situations in which nullification is likely to arise. Another aim is to offer two conceptions of the jury before assessing whether nullification is helpful or harmful to the judicial system. One conception, \\\"a conventional view,\\\" largely held by judges, regards the jury as a fact-finding body and little more. My own conception, which I have labeled \\\"a process view,\\\" envisions a much broader role for the jury, including interpretive and political functions. Under this broader view of the jury, nullification is not always harmful, as it is under the conventional view, but is even beneficial.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47587,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Northwestern University Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1998-12-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"25\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Northwestern University Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315085401-6\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Northwestern University Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315085401-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 25

摘要

陪审团裁决无效是一个受到公众广泛关注的问题,它被宽泛地用来描述媒体和公众不同意的判决。本文的目的之一是解释什么是无效,并确定和描述可能出现无效的三种不同情况。另一个目的是在评估无效对司法系统是有益还是有害之前,提供陪审团的两种概念。一种观念,即“传统观点”,主要由法官持有,认为陪审团是一个事实调查机构,仅此而已。我自己的概念,我称之为“过程观”,为陪审团设想了一个更广泛的角色,包括解释和政治功能。在陪审团的这种更广泛的观点下,无效并不总是有害的,正如传统观点所认为的那样,它甚至是有益的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Myth of the Nullifying Jury
Jury nullification, an issue that has received much public attention, has been used loosely to describe verdicts with which members of the press and public disagree. One aim of this article is to explain what nullification is and to identify and describe three different situations in which nullification is likely to arise. Another aim is to offer two conceptions of the jury before assessing whether nullification is helpful or harmful to the judicial system. One conception, "a conventional view," largely held by judges, regards the jury as a fact-finding body and little more. My own conception, which I have labeled "a process view," envisions a much broader role for the jury, including interpretive and political functions. Under this broader view of the jury, nullification is not always harmful, as it is under the conventional view, but is even beneficial.
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
1.60
自引率
10.50%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Northwestern University Law Review is a student-operated journal that publishes four issues of high-quality, general legal scholarship each year. Student editors make the editorial and organizational decisions and select articles submitted by professors, judges, and practitioners, as well as student pieces.
×
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