Social science research must displace myth, anecdote, and judicial hearsay in directing reform of the jury system. Drawing on the experiences of researchers from commonwealth countries, we explore why it has been so hard to undertake research on real juries. We also identify how the legal and institutional “barriers” might be lifted to facilitate an evidence-based approach to jury reform.
BornsteinB. H.McCabeS. G. (2004–2005) Jurors of the absurd? The role of consequentiality in jury simulation research. Florida State University Law Review32: 443–467.
2.
BrustenM. (1981) Social control of criminology and criminologists. In: BrustenM.PonsaersP. (eds) State control on information in the field of deviance and social control, Leuven, Belgium: European Group for the Study of Deviance and Social Control, pp. 58–77.
3.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, & Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. (2010). Tri-council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. Retrieved from http://pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/initiatives/tcps2-eptc2/Default/.
4.
ChopraS.OgloffJ. (2000) Evaluating jury secrecy: Implications for academic research and juror stress. Criminal Law Quarterly44: 190–222.
5.
CoenM. (2010) Elephants in the room: The Law Reform Commission’s consultation paper on jury service—Part I. Irish Criminal Law Journal20: 75–78.
6.
ComiskeyM. (2010) Initiating dialogue about jury comprehension of legal concepts: Can the “stagnant pool” be revitalized?Queen’s Law Journal35: 625–677.
7.
CunliffeE. (2006) Without fear or favour? Trends and possibilities in the Canadian approach to expert human behaviour evidence. International Journal of Evidence and Proof10: 280–315.
8.
Department for Constitutional Affairs. (2005). Jury research and impropriety: A consultation paper to assess options for allowing research into jury deliberations and to consider investigations into alleged juror impropriety. London, England: Author.
9.
DiamondS. S. (1997) Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior21: 561–571.
HaggertyK. (2004) Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology27: 391–414.
14.
Horan, J. (2004). The civil jury system—An empirical study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
15.
Humphrys, J. (Presenter), MacDonald, K., & Wolf, L. (Guests). (2013, February 21). Firm Pryce judgement “cannot be formed”. [Radio broadcast]. In J. Angus (Ed.), Today. London, England: BBC Radio 4.
16.
IsraelM. (2015) Research ethics and integrity for social scientists: Beyond regulatory compliance, London, England: Sage.
KatsutaT. (2010) Japan’s rejection of the American criminal jury. American Journal of Comparative Law58: 497–524.
19.
KiftS.IsraelM.FieldR. (2010) Bachelor of laws learning and teaching academic standards statement, Sydney, Australia: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.
Matthews, R., Hancock, L., & Briggs, D. (2004). Jurors’ perceptions, understanding, confidence and satisfaction in the jury system: A study in six courts. Research Development and Statistics Directorate: Home Office Online Report 05/04.
28.
MonahanJ.WalkerL. (1991) Judicial use of social science research. Law and Human Behavior15: 571–584.
29.
MonahanJ.WalkerL. (2007) A judges’ guide to using social science. Court Review43: 156–163.
30.
National Health and Medical Research Council. (2007). National statement on ethical conduct in human research 2007 (Rev. 2014). Canberra, Australia: Author.
31.
New Zealand Law Commission. (2001). Juries in criminal trials (Report 69). Wellington, NZ: Author.
32.
ParkR. (2010) The globalizing jury trial: Lessons and insights from Korea. American Journal of Comparative Law58: 525–582.
33.
RamseyS.KellyR. (2004) Social science knowledge in family law cases: Judicial gate-keeping in the Daubert era. University of Miami Law Review59: 1–81.
Weinberg, M. (2012). Simplification of jury directions project: A report to the Jury Directions Advisory Group August 2012. Melbourne, Australia: Supreme Court of Victoria.
42.
Young, W, Cameron, N., & Tinsley, Y. (1999). Juries in criminal trials part two: A summary of the research findings. Welington, New Zealand: Law Commission.
