Abstract
For the last century, social research has provided evidence that contradicts the idea of objectivity in judicial procedure. As a result, research on jurors' potential bias has emerged. We propose an alternative to traditional jury, one in which social researchers collaborate with judges and lawyers, providing them with information on the juror bias. Legal authoritarianism is one of the characteristics of personality, which seems to be linked to juror verdicts. We present two studies, which develop a specific measure for this variable. The first study shows the relevance of legal authoritarianism as a variable to describe the psychological profile of juror-eligible respondents. The second study explores the relationship between legal authoritarianism and interpretation of the evidence, as well as the potential of this variable to predict verdicts.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
