Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T03:12:11.401Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jury Verdicts and Preference Diversity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Dino Gerardi
Dino Gerardi*
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I develop a model of decision making in juries when there is uncertainty about jurors' preferences. I provide a characterization of the equilibrium strategy under any voting rule and show that nonunanimous rules are asymptotically efficient. Specifically, large juries make the correct decision with probability close to one. My analysis also demonstrates that under the unanimous rule, large juries almost never convict the defendant. The last result contrasts markedly with the literature and suggests that the unanimity rule can protect the innocent only at the price of acquitting the guilty.

Type
Forum
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 94 , Issue 2 , June 2000 , pp. 395 - 406
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Austen-Smith, David, and Banks, Jeffrey S.. 1996. “Information Aggregation, Rationality, and the Condorcet Jury Theorem.” American Political Science Review 90 (03): 34–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Sven. 1993. “Condorcet's Jury Theorem, Dependency among Jurors.” Social Choice and Welfare 10 (01): 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Condorcet, Marquis de. [1785] 1976. “Essay on the Application of Mathematics to the Theory of Decision-Making.” In Condorcet: Selected Writings, ed. Baker, Keith M.. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Coughlan, Peter J. 2000. “In Defense of Unanimous Jury Verdicts: Mistrials, Communication, and Strategic Voting.” American Political Science Review 94 (06): 375–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, James H. 1973. “Group Decision and Social Interaction: A Theory of Social Decision Scheme.” Psychological Review 80 (03): 97–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duggan, John, and Martinelli, César. 1999. “A Bayesian Model of Voting in Juries.” University of Rochester. Typescript.Google Scholar
Feddersen, Timothy J., and Pesendorfer, Wolfgang. 1997. “Voting Behavior and Information Aggregation in Elections with Private Information.” Econometrica 65 (09): 1029–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feddersen, Timothy J., and Pesendorfer, Wolfgang. 1998. “Convicting the Innocent: The Inferiority of Unanimous Jury Verdicts.” American Political Science Review 92 (03): 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelfand, Alan E., and Solomon, Herbert. 1977. “An Argument in Favor of 12-Member Juries.” In Modeling the Criminal Justice System, ed. Nagel, Stuart S.. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Grofman, Bernard, and Feld, Scott L.. 1988. “Rousseau's General Will: A Condorcetian Perspective.” American Political Science Review 82 (06): 567–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalven, Harry, and Zeisel, Hans. 1966. The American Jury. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Klevorick, Alvin K., Rothschild, Michael, and Winship, Christopher. 1984. “Information Processing and Jury Decision Making.” Journal of Public Economics 23 (04): 245–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladha, Krishna K. 1992. “The Condorcet Jury Theorem, Free Speech, and Correlated Votes.” American Journal of Political Science 36 (08): 617–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladha, Krishna K., Miller, Gary, and Oppenheimer, Joe. 1996. “Information Aggregation by Majority Rule: Theory and Experiments.” University of Maryland. Typescript.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D., and Palfrey, Thomas R.. 1998. “An Experimental Study of Jury Decision.” California Institute of Technology. Typescript.Google Scholar
McLennan, Andrew. 1998. “Consequences of the Condorcet Jury Theorem for Beneficial Information Aggregation by Rational Agents.” American Political Science Review 92 (06): 413–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myerson, Roger. 1998. “Extended Poisson Games and the Condorcet Jury Theorem.” Games and Economic Behavior 25 (10): 111–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, Stuart S., and Neef, Marian. 1975. “Using Deductive Modeling to Determine an Optimum Jury Size and Fraction Required to Convict.” Washington University Law Quarterly 61 (Winter): 933–78.Google Scholar
Persico, Nicola. 1999. “Consensus and the Accuracy of Signals: Optimal Committee Design with Endogenous Information.” University of Pennsylvania. Typescript.Google Scholar
Wit, Yorgen. 1998. “Rational Choice and the Condorcet Jury Theorem.” Games and Economic Behavior 22 (02): 364–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, Peyton. 1988. “Condorcet's Theory of Voting.” American Political Science Review 82 (12): 1231–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar