1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Law and Social Science
  4. Volume 20, 2024
  5. Article

Annual Review of Law and Social Science

Volume 20, 2024

Judgment by Peers: Lay Participation in Legal Decision Making

Abstract

Almost two-thirds of countries worldwide rely on laypersons as legal decision makers in criminal cases, and a substantial number use laypersons to resolve civil disputes. Laypersons participate as jurors, lay judges, lay magistrates, and members of lay courts. Their participation enhances fact-finding by incorporating community views and values into legal decision making. Lay participation can also increase the transparency and legitimacy of law and the courts and promote democracy. As a result, some countries have adopted lay participation in recent decades. Yet, concerns about competence and bias have led other countries to circumscribe or abolish their systems of lay participation. This review describes the different roles that laypersons play as legal decision makers and the work that they do. It also describes the competing trends to expand or limit lay participation in legal decision making. After summarizing the research evidence, this article concludes that there is much value in judgment by peers.

Keyword(s): decision making, jury, lay court, lay judge, lay magistrate, mixed court
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041822-025652
2024-10-17
2025-04-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/20/1/annurev-lawsocsci-041822-025652.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041822-025652&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Almeida VG, Bakrokar DC, Bilinski M, Chizik ND, Harfuch A, et al. 2021.. The rise of the jury in Argentina: evolution in real time. . See Kutnjak Ivković et al. 2021 , pp. 25–46
  2. Am. Bar Assoc. 2024.. Principles for Juries and Jury Trials. Eagon, MN:: Thomson/West. https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/american_jury/principles-juries-jury-trial.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Am. Judic. Soc. 1999.. Behind Closed Doors: A Guide for Jury Deliberations. Chicago:: Am. Judic. Soc.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Amnesty International. 2002.. Rwanda: Gacaca tribunals must conform with international fair trial standards. . Press Release, Dec. 17. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/afr47/005/2002/en/
  5. Asoc. Argent. Juicio Jurados. 2024.. Argentina: The province of Santa Fe gives the world its newest jury system. Press Release, March 23. http://www.juicioporjurados.org/2024/03/argentina-province-of-santa-fe-gives.html
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bado W. 2017.. De Abogados, Jueces y Juicos. La Justicia a Través de la Historia [Of Lawyers, Judges, and Trials; Justice through History]. Montevideo, Urug:.: Fund. Cult. Univ.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Baldus DC, Grosso CM, Dunham R, Woodworth G, Newell R. 2012.. Statistical proof of racial discrimination in the use of peremptory challenges: the impact and promise of the Miller-El line of cases as reflected in the experience of one Philadelphia capital case. . Iowa Law Rev. 97::1425–65
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bandes SA, Feigenson N. 2020.. Virtual trials: necessity, invention, and the evolution of the courtroom. . Buffalo Law Rev. 68::1275–352
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Benninger T, Colwell C, Mukamal D, Plachinski L. 2021.. Virtual justice? A national study analyzing the transition to remote criminal court. Rep. , Stanford Crim. Justice Cent., Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA:. https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Virtual-Justice-Final-Aug-2021.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bergoglio MI. 2021.. Twelve years of mixed tribunals in Argentina. . See Kutnjak Ivković et al. 2021 , pp. 47–68
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Binnall JM. 2021.. Twenty Million Angry Men: The Case for Including Convicted Felons in Our Jury System. Oakland:: Univ. Calif. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bolocan MG. 2004.. Rwandan gacaca: an experiment in transitional justice. . J. Dispute Resolut. 2::355–400
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Bonnieu M. 2001.. The presumption of innocence and the Cour d'Assises: Is France ready for adversarial procedure?. Int. Rev. Penal Law 72::559–77
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Boulanger-Bonnelly J. 2023a.. Civil lay judges: a global overview. Work. Pap. , McGill Univ., Montreal, Can.: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4179703
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Boulanger-Bonnelly J. 2023b.. The hybridization of lay courts: from Colombia to England and Wales. . Chicago-Kent Law Rev. 98::191–216
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Caprathe W, Hannaford-Agor P, Loquvam SM, Diamond SS. 2016.. Increasing jury representativeness. . Judges J. 55::16–20
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Casper G, Zeisel H. 1972.. Lay judges in the German criminal courts. . J. Legal Stud. 1::135–91
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  18. Chalmers J, Leverick F, Munro V. 2021.. Why the jury is, and should still be, out on rape deliberation. . Crim. Law Rev. 9::753–71
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Clark P. 2012.. How Rwanda judged its genocide. . African Research Institute Counterpoints, May 2. https://www.africaresearchinstitute.org/newsite/publications/how-rwanda-judged-its-genocide-new/
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Crown Prosec. Serv. 2020.. Rape and serious sexual offences (RASSO) flagged pre-charge and prosecution outcomes by crime types management information. Publ., Case Manag. Inf. Syst. , Crown Prosec. Serv., London.: https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/publications/Rape-Annual-Data-Tables-Year-Ending-March-2020.xlsx
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Darbyshire P. 1999.. A comment on the powers of magistrates’ clerks. . Crim. Law Rev. May:377–86
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Davies M. 2005.. A new training initiative for the lay magistracy in England and Wales—a further step towards professionalism?. Int. J. Legal Prof. 12::93–119
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  23. Dawson J. 1960.. A History of Lay Judges. Cambridge, MA:: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Diamond SS. 1990.. Revising images of public punitiveness: sentencing by lay and professional English magistrates. . Law Soc. Inq. 15::191–221
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  25. Diamond SS, Bowman LE, Wong M, Patton MM. 2010.. Efficiency and cost: the impact of videoconferenced hearings on bail decisions. . J. Crim. Law Criminol. 100::869–902
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Diamond SS, Hans VP. 2023.. Fair juries. . Univ. Ill. Law Rev. 2023::879–953 Shows how best practices in jury selection, trial processes, and jury deliberation promote fair juries.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Diamond SS, Hans VP, Chizik N, Harfuch A. 2023.. The arrival of the civil jury in Argentina: the case of Chaco. . Chicago-Kent Law Rev. 98::163–89
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Diamond SS, Rose MR. 2005.. Real juries. . Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 1::255–84
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  29. Diamond SS, Rose MR. 2018.. The contemporary American jury. . Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 14::239–58
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  30. Diesen C. 2001.. Lay judges in Sweden. . Int. Rev. Penal Law 72::313–15
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Doob AN, Baranek PM, Addario SM. 1991.. Understanding Justices: A Study of Canadian Justices of the Peace. Toronto:: Cent. Criminol. Univ. Tor.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 US 145 ( 1968.)
  33. Elek JK, Hannaford-Agor P. 2013.. First, do no harm: on addressing the problem of implicit bias in juror decision making. . Court Rev. 49::190–98
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Elek JK, Hannaford-Agor P. 2015.. Implicit bias and the American juror. . Court Rev. 51::116–21
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Ellison L, Munro V. 2009.. Reacting to rape: exploring mock jurors’ assessments of complainant credibility. . Br. J. Criminol. 49::202–19
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  36. Finch E, Munro V. 2006.. Breaking boundaries? Sexual consent in the jury room. . Legal Stud. 26::303–20
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  37. Gaparayi IT. 2001.. Justice and social reconstruction in the aftermath of genocide in Rwanda: an evaluation of the possible role of the gacaca tribunals. . Afr. Hum. Rights Law J. 1::78–106
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Gastil J, Deess EP, Weiser PJ, Simmons C. 2010.. The Jury and Democracy: How Jury Deliberation Promotes Civic Engagement and Political Participation. New York:: Oxford Univ. Press Provides research showing a link between jury service and other forms of civic engagement.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Geraghty MA. 2020.. Gacaca, genocide, genocide ideology: the violent aftermaths of transitional justice in the new Rwanda. . Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 62::588–618
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  40. Germain CM. 2021.. Trials by peers: the ebb and flow of the criminal jury in France and Belgium. . See Kutnjak Ivković et al. 2021 , pp. 218–36
  41. Gibbs P. 2015.. The white, middle-aged and middle-class who are still sitting in judgement. . Financial Times, Nov. 6. https://www.ft.com/content/63711808-818e-11e5-8095-ed1a37d1e096
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Gibbs P, Kirby A. 2014.. Judged by peers? The diversity of lay magistrates in England and Wales. Work. Pap. , Inst. Crim. Policy Res., Birkbeck:, Univ. London. https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/22162/1/HLWP_6_2014.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Gibson JL. 2004.. Overcoming Apartheid: Can Truth Reconcile a Divided Nation? New York:: Russell Sage Found.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Greene SS, Renberg KM. 2022.. Judging without a J.D. . Columbia Law Rev. 122::1287–388
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Hannaford-Agor PL, Hans VP, Mott NL, Munsterman GT. 2002.. Are Hung Juries a Problem? Williamsburg, VA:: Natl. Cent. State Courts
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Hans VP. 2008.. Jury systems around the world. . Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 4::275–97
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  47. Hans VP. 2017.. Trial by jury: story of a legal transplant (presidential address). . Law Soc. Rev. 51::471–99
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  48. Hans VP. 2022.. Virtual juries. . DePaul Law Rev. 71::301–30
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Hans VP. In press.. The landscape of lay decision-making in civil litigation. . In Comparative Civil Procedure: Power, Authority and Culture in Dispute Resolution, ed. M Woo, R van Rhee . Northampton, MA:: Edward Elgar Publ.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Hans VP, Gastil J, Feller T. 2014.. Deliberative democracy and the American civil jury. . J. Empir. Legal Stud. 11::697–717
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  51. Harfuch A. 2015.. La firmeza (finalidad) del veredicto del jurado [The finality of the jury's verdict. ]. In II Congreso Internacional de Juicio por Jurados [Second International Conference of Trial by Jury], ed. G Lentner, L Piñeyro , pp. 85–112. Buenos Aires:: Jusbaires
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Hastie R, Penrod SD, Pennington N. 1983.. Inside the Jury. Cambridge, MA:: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Higginbotham P, Rosenthal LH, Gensler SS. 2020.. Better by the dozen: bringing back the twelve-person civil jury. . Judicature 104::47–57 Reviews the empirical evidence on the advantages of larger juries.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Horowitz R. 2012.. In the Public Interest: Medical Licensing and the Disciplinary Process. New Brunswick, NJ:: Rutgers Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Human Rights Watch. 2011.. Justice compromised: the legacy of Rwanda's community-based gacaca courts. Rep. , Cent. Geogr. Inf. Syst. Remote Sens., Natl. Univ. Rwanda, Butare. https://www.hrw.org/report/2011/05/31/justice-compromised/legacy-rwandas-community-based-gacaca-courts
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Hunt JS. 2015.. Race, ethnicity, and culture in jury decision making. . Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 11::269–88
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  57. Jimeno-Bulnes M. 2021.. The twenty-fifth anniversary of the Spanish jury. . See Kutnjak Ivković et al. 2021 , pp. 107–27
  58. Jimeno-Bulnes M, Hans VP. 2016.. Legal interpreter for the jury: the role of the clerk of the court in Spain. . Oñati Socio-legal Stud. 6::197–215
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Jolly R, Hans VP, Peck RS. 2022.. Democratic renewal and the civil jury. . Ga. Law Rev. 57::79–162
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Kalven H Jr., Zeisel H. 1966.. The American Jury. Boston:: Little, Brown
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Kane JL. 2003.. Giving trials a second look. . Denver Law Rev. 80::738–42
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Kang J, Bennett M, Carbado D, Casey P, Dasgupta N, et al. 2012.. Implicit bias in the courtroom. . UCLA Law Rev. 59::1124–86
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Karekezi UA, Nshimiyimana A, Mutamba B. 2004.. Localizing justice: gacaca courts in post-genocide Rwanda. . In My Neighbor, My Enemy: Justice and Community in the Aftermath of Atrocity, ed. E Stover, HM Weinstein , pp. 69–84. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Kim S, Park J, Park K, Eom JS. 2013.. Judge-jury agreement in criminal cases: the first three years of the Korean jury system. . J. Empir. Legal Stud. 10::35–53
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  65. Klami HT, Hämäläinen M. 1992.. Lawyers and Laymen on the Bench. Helsinki:: Suom. Tiedeakat.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Kovalev N, Meladze G. 2021.. Trial by jury in Georgia: a catalyst for evolving independent courts. . See Kutnjak Ivković et al. 2021 , pp. 261–81
  67. Kovalev N, Nasonov S. 2021.. The Russian jury trial: an ongoing legal and political experiment. . See Kutnjak Ivković et al. 2021 , pp. 237–60
  68. Kutnjak Ivković S. 1999.. Lay Participation in Criminal Trials: The Case of Croatia. Lanham, MD:: Austin & Winfield Publ.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Kutnjak Ivković S. 2007.. Exploring lay participation in legal decision-making: lessons from mixed tribunals. . Cornell Int. Law J. 40::429–53
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Kutnjak Ivković S. 2015.. Ears of the deaf: the theory and reality of lay judges in mixed tribunals. . Chicago-Kent Law Rev. 90::1031–67
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Kutnjak Ivković S, Diamond SS, Hans VP, Marder NS, eds. 2021.. Juries, Lay Judges, and Mixed Courts: A Global Perspective. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press Describes the extent of lay legal decision making in different countries and countries’ changing practices over time.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Kutnjak Ivković S, Hans VP. 2021.. A worldwide perspective on lay participation. . See Kutnjak Ivković et al. 2021 , pp. 323–45
  73. Kutnjak Ivković S, Hans VP. 2023.. Beacons of democracy? A worldwide exploration of the relationship between democracy and lay participation in criminal cases. . Chicago-Kent Law Rev. 98::131–61
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Li SD, Liu TH. 2019.. Problem-solving courts in China: background, development, and current status. . Vict. Offenders 14::360–74
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  75. Machura S. 2001.. Interaction between lay assessors and professional judges in German mixed courts. . Int. Rev. Penal Law 72::451–79
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Machura S. 2003.. Fairness, justice, and legitimacy: experiences of people's judges in South Russia. . Law Policy 25::124–50
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  77. Machura S. 2007.. Lay assessors of German administrative courts: fairness, power-distance orientation, and deliberation activity. . J. Empir. Legal Stud. 4::331–62
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  78. Machura S. 2021.. “ … And my right”: the magistrates’ courts in England and Wales. . See Kutnjak Ivković et al. 2021 , pp. 131–51
  79. Machura S, Kutnjak Ivković S, Hans VP. 2023.. Recent developments about lay judges in the European Union. . Laikos 2023::54–61
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Machura S, Rennig C. 2021.. “In the name of the people”: lay assessors in Germany. . See Kutnjak Ivković et al. 2021 , pp. 152–73
  81. Marder NS. 2011.. Two weeks at the Old Bailey: jury lessons from England. . Chicago-Kent Law Rev. 86::537–83
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Marder NS. 2022.. The Power of the Jury: Transforming Citizens into Jurors. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press Describes how the stages of the jury process transform citizens into jurors.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Marder NS. 2023.. Race, peremptory challenges, and state courts: a blueprint for change. . Chicago-Kent Law Rev. 98::65–106
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Marder NS, Diamond SS, Hans VP, Jimeno-Bulnes M, Kutnjak Ivković S, Rose MR. 2023.. Introduction to symposium: juries in a time of crisis and change. . Chicago-Kent Law Rev. 98::13–33
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Marder NS, Hans VP. 2015.. Introduction to juries and lay participation: American perspectives and global trends. . Chicago-Kent Law Rev. 90::789–824
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Mize GE. 1999.. On better jury selection: spotting UFO jurors before they enter the jury room. . Court Rev. 1999::10–15
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Mize GE, Connelly CJ. 2004.. Jury trial innovations: charting a rising tide. . Court Rev. 41::4–10
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Munsterman GT, Hannaford PL, Whitehead GM, eds. 1997.. Jury Trial Innovations. Williamsburg, VA:: Natl. Cent. State Courts
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Munsterman GT, Hannaford-Agor PL, Whitehead GM, eds. 2006.. Jury Trial Innovations. Williamsburg, VA:: Natl. Cent. State Courts. , 2nd ed.. https://www.ncsc-jurystudies.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/7644/jury-trial-innovations-2d-ed-2006.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  90. O'Brien B, Grosso CM. 2023.. Judges, lawyers, and willing jurors: a tale of two jury selections. . Chicago-Kent Law Rev. 98::107–30
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Offit A. 2021.. Dismissing the jury: mixed courts and lay participation in Norway. . See Kutnjak Ivković et al. 2021 , pp. 197–217
  92. Oldham J. 2006.. Trial by Jury: The Seventh Amendment and Anglo-American Special Juries. New York:: NYU Press
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Olsson SV. 2019.. The professional judges rejected the jury's verdict: the whole case must be retried. . NRK, Jan. 28. https://www.nrk.no/norge/fagdommeme-juryens-kjennelse-hele-saken-ma-opp-pa-nytt-1.14398128
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Park J. 2021.. The Korean jury system: the first decade. . See Kutnjak Ivković et al. 2021 , pp. 88–106
  95. Parker H, Sumner M, Jarvis G. 1989.. Unmasking the Magistrates. Philadelphia:: Open Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Perron W. 2001.. Lay participation in Germany. . Int. Rev. Penal Law 72::181–95
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Porterie MS, Romano A, Hans VP. 2021.. El Jurado Neuquino: El Comienzo del Jurado Clásico en la Argentina [The Neuquenian Jury: The Beginning of the Classic Jury Trial in Argentina]. Buenos Aires:: INECIP. https://inecip.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/El-jurado-neuquino-El-comienzo-del-jurado-cl%C3%A1sico-en-la-Argentina.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Porterie S, Romano A. 2018.. El Poder del Jurado: Descubriendo el Juicio por Jurados en la Provincia de Buenos Aires [The Power of the Jury: Discovering Trial by Jury in the Province of Buenos Aires]. Buenos Aires:: INECIP. https://inecip.org/wp-content/uploads/El-poder-del-jurado-Octubre-2018.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Powers v. Ohio, 499 US 400 ( 1991.)
  100. Provine DM. 1986.. Judging Credentials: Nonlawyer Judges and the Politics of Professionalism. Chicago:: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US 83 ( 2020.)
  102. Reichel PL. 2017.. Comparative Criminal Justice Systems: A Topical Approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ:: Prentice Hall
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Rossner M, McCurdy M. 2020.. Video hearings process evaluation (phase 2) final report. Rep. , HM Courts Trib. Serv., London:. https://perma.cc/5UG5-YMU2
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Rossner M, Tait D. 2023.. Virtual technology and the changing rituals of courtroom justice. . Chicago-Kent Law Rev. 98::251–79
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Schuller R, Vidmar N. 2011.. The Canadian criminal jury. . Chicago-Kent Law Rev. 86::497–535
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Scott. Gov., Safer Communities Dir. 2021.. Criminal proceedings in Scotland 2019-20. . Rep. Scott. Gov., Edinburgh . https://www.gov.scot/publications/criminal-proceedings-scotland-2019-20/
  107. Seligson M. 2001.. Lay participation in South Africa from apartheid to majority rule. . Int. Rev. Penal Law 72::273–84
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Smith BP. 2005.. Plea bargaining and the eclipse of the jury. . Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 1::131–49
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  109. Strandbakken A. 2001.. Lay participation in Norway. . Int. Rev. Penal Law 72::225–52
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Taman E. 2003.. Lay participation in criminal justice: enhancing justice system legitimacy in post-conflict states. . Dalhousie J. Legal Stud. 12::33–61
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Taxquet v. Belgium, Eur. Court Hum. Rights, appl. 926/05 ( 2010.). https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/a77480/pdf/
  112. Thaman SC. 1995.. The resurrection of trial by jury in Russia. . Stanford J. Int. Law 31::61–274
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Thaman SC. 2011.. Should criminal juries give reasons for their verdicts? The Spanish experience and the implications of the European Court of Human Rights decision in Taxquet v. . Belgium. Chicago-Kent Law Rev. 86::613–68 Analyzes the arguments about whether juries should give reasoned verdicts.
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Thomas C. 2020.. The 21st century jury: contempt, bias and the impact of jury service. . Crim. Law Rev. 11::987–1011
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Thomas SA. 2016.. The Missing American Jury: Restoring the Fundamental Constitutional Role of the Criminal, Civil, and Grand Juries. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press Explains how political and judicial actors have taken away the power and authority of juries.
     [Google Scholar]
  116. Tocqueville A. 1945 (1835).. Democracy in America, Vol. 1. New York:: Vintage Books
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Vanoverbeke D. 2015.. Juries in the Japanese Legal System. New York:: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  118. Vanoverbeke D, Fukurai H. 2021.. Lay participation in the criminal trial in Japan: a decade of activity and its sociopolitical consequences. . See Kutnjak Ivković et al. 2021 , pp. 69–87
  119. Vidmar N, ed. 2000.. World Jury Systems. New York:: Oxford Univ. Press Describes the range and features of different jury systems worldwide.
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Vidmar N, Hans VP. 2007.. American Juries: The Verdict. Amherst, NY:: Prometheus
     [Google Scholar]
  121. Ward J. 2017.. Transforming Summary Justice: Modernisation in the Lower Criminal Courts. London: Routledge:
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Wu J. 2021.. People's mediation committees: bargaining between hospitals and patients. . J. Chin. Polit. Sci. 26::353–71
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  123. Yue L. 2001.. The lay assessor system in China. . Int. Rev. Penal Law 72::51–56
     [Google Scholar]
  124. Zhang J. 2014.. The Tradition and Modern Transition of Chinese Law. Berlin:: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041822-025652
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error