The thirteenth juror

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 t...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:  
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Nir, Esther (Autor)
Otros Autores: Griffiths, Elizabeth
Tipo de documento: Electrónico Artículo
Lenguaje:Inglés
Publicado: 2019
En: The British journal of criminology
Año: 2019, Volumen: 59, Número: 2, Páginas: 315-333
Acceso en línea: Volltext (Verlag)
Journals Online & Print:
Gargar...
Verificar disponibilidad: HBZ Gateway
Palabras clave:
Sentencing disparities
Judicial discretion
Juries
Evidentiary strength
Geschworenenprozess
Geschworene
Urteilsfindung
Richter
USA
Problematik
Descripción
Sumario: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.
ISSN:1464-3529
DOI:10.1093/bjc/azy029