Abstract
An analysis of criminal court verdicts after trials with and without juries shows that, contrary to popular belief, juries are acting tougher than judges in deliberating the fate of defendants. Study of 58,336 trials of persons charged with felonies in six states and the District of Columbia shows that juries convict substantially more often than judges trying cases alone. The slightly contrary results in two other jurisdictions are explained by special circumstances. The phenomenon of jury toughness is seen to be the result of changes in the dominant po litical ideology, as trend data on federal court verdicts show an increasing rate of jury convictions since the 1950s as a response to the growth of popular conserva tism on criminal justice issues. Jurors, as representing the body politic, have used their discretion over fact finding as their means of expressing indignation about crime and dealing harshly with criminals.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.