司法辛迪加:互动剧场如何为陪审团决策和公众对法律的理解提供一个窗口

IF 0.3 Q3 LAW Law and Humanities Pub Date : 2020-07-02 DOI:10.1080/17521483.2020.1801137
D. Barnard, K. D. Meyer
{"title":"司法辛迪加:互动剧场如何为陪审团决策和公众对法律的理解提供一个窗口","authors":"D. Barnard, K. D. Meyer","doi":"10.1080/17521483.2020.1801137","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Justice Syndicate (TJS) is an interactive performance, featuring an audience who become jurors considering a difficult case. Via iPads, participants receive evidence, witness testimonies and prompts to vote and discuss the case. We compare TJS to other theatre performances in which audiences are juries, arguing it is unique in only having twelve audience members, with no additional spectators. We compare TJS to experiments researching jury decision-making. In its novel use of technology, it offers a scalable method to research group decision-making in jury-style settings, or to give legal practitioners and prospective jurors an experience of the psychological factors affecting jury deliberation. We discuss how different juries can be presented with identical evidence and come to opposing verdicts. We argue that these wildly different outcomes are linked to how the participants – individually and as a group – resolve the tension between what is legal and what is just.","PeriodicalId":42313,"journal":{"name":"Law and Humanities","volume":"14 1","pages":"212 - 243"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17521483.2020.1801137","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Justice Syndicate: how interactive theatre provides a window into jury decision making and the public understanding of law\",\"authors\":\"D. Barnard, K. D. Meyer\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17521483.2020.1801137\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The Justice Syndicate (TJS) is an interactive performance, featuring an audience who become jurors considering a difficult case. Via iPads, participants receive evidence, witness testimonies and prompts to vote and discuss the case. We compare TJS to other theatre performances in which audiences are juries, arguing it is unique in only having twelve audience members, with no additional spectators. We compare TJS to experiments researching jury decision-making. In its novel use of technology, it offers a scalable method to research group decision-making in jury-style settings, or to give legal practitioners and prospective jurors an experience of the psychological factors affecting jury deliberation. We discuss how different juries can be presented with identical evidence and come to opposing verdicts. We argue that these wildly different outcomes are linked to how the participants – individually and as a group – resolve the tension between what is legal and what is just.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law and Humanities\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"212 - 243\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17521483.2020.1801137\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law and Humanities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17521483.2020.1801137\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Humanities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17521483.2020.1801137","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要《正义辛迪加》(TJS)是一场互动演出,观众将成为审理疑难案件的陪审员。参与者通过iPad接收证据、证人证词以及投票和讨论案件的提示。我们将TJS与其他由观众组成陪审团的戏剧表演进行了比较,认为它的独特之处在于只有12名观众,没有额外的观众。我们将TJS与研究陪审团决策的实验进行了比较。在其新颖的技术应用中,它为研究陪审团式环境中的群体决策提供了一种可扩展的方法,或为法律从业者和潜在陪审员提供了影响陪审团审议的心理因素的体验。我们讨论了如何向不同的陪审团提供相同的证据,并得出相反的裁决。我们认为,这些截然不同的结果与参与者——无论是个人还是集体——如何解决合法与公正之间的紧张关系有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Justice Syndicate: how interactive theatre provides a window into jury decision making and the public understanding of law
ABSTRACT The Justice Syndicate (TJS) is an interactive performance, featuring an audience who become jurors considering a difficult case. Via iPads, participants receive evidence, witness testimonies and prompts to vote and discuss the case. We compare TJS to other theatre performances in which audiences are juries, arguing it is unique in only having twelve audience members, with no additional spectators. We compare TJS to experiments researching jury decision-making. In its novel use of technology, it offers a scalable method to research group decision-making in jury-style settings, or to give legal practitioners and prospective jurors an experience of the psychological factors affecting jury deliberation. We discuss how different juries can be presented with identical evidence and come to opposing verdicts. We argue that these wildly different outcomes are linked to how the participants – individually and as a group – resolve the tension between what is legal and what is just.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Law and Humanities is a peer-reviewed journal, providing a forum for scholarly discourse within the arts and humanities around the subject of law. For this purpose, the arts and humanities disciplines are taken to include literature, history (including history of art), philosophy, theology, classics and the whole spectrum of performance and representational arts. The remit of the journal does not extend to consideration of the laws that regulate practical aspects of the arts and humanities (such as the law of intellectual property). Law and Humanities is principally concerned to engage with those aspects of human experience which are not empirically quantifiable or scientifically predictable. Each issue will carry four or five major articles of between 8,000 and 12,000 words each. The journal will also carry shorter papers (up to 4,000 words) sharing good practice in law and humanities education; reports of conferences; reviews of books, exhibitions, plays, concerts and other artistic publications.
期刊最新文献
Exploring authorship and ownership of plays at the time of William Shakespeare’s First Folio Shakespeare and the theatre of early modern law Performing a constitution: a history of Magna Carta in Shakespeare’s King John Programming utopia: artificial intelligence, judgement, and the prospect of jurisgenesis Roman law and Latin literature
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1