RT Article
T1 The thirteenth juror
JF The British journal of criminology
VO 59
IS 2
SP 315
OP 333
A1 Nir, Esther
A2 Griffiths, Elizabeth
LA English
YR 2019
UL https://krimdok.uni-tuebingen.de/Record/1590172299
AB Judges presiding over jury trials are tasked with imposing sentence on convicted defendants, even though they play little role in deciding guilt. When judges agree with the jury’s verdict, this arrangement is unproblematic; when they do not, judges are placed in a challenging predicament. Although they may take the extraordinary step of overriding the jury’s decision, this is a rare option reserved for highly exceptional circumstances. Based on interviews with 41 US judges, this study investigates whether judges, consciously or otherwise, employ more subtle means of correcting perceived guilt-phase injustices by calibrating sentence severity according to their confidence in the jury’s verdict. Judges’ rationales for doing so largely revolve around maintaining peace of mind and producing just outcomes.
K1 Sentencing disparities
K1 Judicial discretion
K1 Juries
K1 Evidentiary strength
K1 Geschworenenprozess
K1 Geschworene
K1 Urteilsfindung
K1 Richter
K1 USA
K1 Problematik
DO 10.1093/bjc/azy029