Animal spare parts? A Canadian public consultation on xenotransplantation

Xenotransplantation, or the use of animal cells, tissues and organs for humans, has been promoted as an important solution to the worldwide shortage of organs. While scientific studies continue to be done to address problems of rejection and the possibility of animal-to-human virus transfer, socio-ethical and legal questions have also been raised around informed consent, life-long monitoring, animal welfare and animal rights, and appropriate regulatory practices. Many calls have also been made to consult publics before policy decisions are made. This paper describes the Canadian public consultation process on xenotransplantation carried out by the Canadian Public Health Association in an arm’s length process from Health Canada, the ministry overseeing government health policy and regulation. Focusing on six citizen fora conducted around the country patterned after the citizen jury deliberative approach, the paper describes the citizen panelists’ recommendations to hold off on proceeding with clinical trials and the rationales behind this recommendation. The consultation process is discussed in the context of constructive technology assessment, a framework which argues for broader input into earlier stages of technology innovation, particularly at the technology design stage. This study was supported by a grant to the first author from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council in Canada.     

A qualitative analysis of mock jurors' deliberations of linkage analysis evidence

Evidence about a suspect's behavioural similarity across a series of crimes has been presented in legal proceedings in at least three different countries. Its admission as expert evidence, whilst still rare, is becoming more common thus it is important for us to understand how such evidence is received by jurors and legal professionals. This article reports on a qualitative analysis of mock jurors' deliberations about expert linkage analysis evidence. Three groups of mock jurors (N = 20) were presented with the prosecution's linkage analysis evidence from the USA State v. Fortin I murder trial and expert evidence for the defence constructed for the purposes of the study. Each group was asked to deliberate and reach a verdict. Deliberations were video‐recorded and subject to thematic content analysis. The themes that emerged were varied. Analysis suggested that the mock jurors were cautious of the expert evidence of behavioural similarity. In some cases they were sceptical of the expert. They articulated a preference that expert opinion be supported using statistics. Additional themes included jurors having misconceptions concerning what is typical offender behaviour during rape which suggests there is a need for expert linkage analysis evidence regarding behavioural similarities and the relative frequencies of crime scene behaviours. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Numeracy in the jury box: Numerical ability,meaningful anchors,and damage award decision making

This project employs an experimental design to test theoretical predictions regarding how numeracy can assist jurors in determining damage awards to compensate a plaintiff for pain and suffering and how the use of meaningful numerical anchors may produce similar benefits. Mock jurors (N = 345) reviewed a legal case and were asked to give a dollar award to compensate the plaintiff for pain and suffering. The presence and nature of a numerical anchor and the duration of pain and suffering were manipulated. Participants' numeracy was measured. Results provided support for predictions. Jurors higher in numeracy gave awards that more appropriately reflected the duration of pain and suffering and showed less variability in awards. Similar benefits were obtained by exposing jurors to meaningful numerical anchors to help them contextualize dollar amounts. Thus, introducing meaningful anchors to jurors may provide similar benefits to numeracy, without the drawbacks associated with selecting only numerate jurors.     

Effects of group decision rules on decisions involving continuous alternatives: The unanimity rule and extreme decisions in mock civil juries

Two experiments examined the effects of majority and unanimity decision rules on group decisions involving continuous alternatives. Each experiment used mock civil juries to test three hypotheses related to the claim that when the distribution of group members’ initial preferences is skewed, the group’s decision will be influenced more by the presence of outlier members under unanimity rule than under majority rule. Experiment 1 tested the hypotheses using a punitive damages case and positively skewed preference distributions. Experiment 2 tested the hypotheses using a compensatory damages case and manipulating the skewness of preference distributions in a 2 (group decision rule) × 2 (valence of skewness) factorial design. In both experiments, the extreme (outlier) member’s individual preference was significantly correlated with the group decision only under unanimity rule. A simple thought experiment based on the experimental results is suggested regarding the implications of using unanimity or majority rule for making decisions in civil juries.     

Jury simulation studies: To exclude or not to exclude participants based on a lack of comprehension of the case?

Jury simulation research has been the subject of longstanding criticism in regards to ecological validity. One additional factor that has received little attention that may also impact the generalizability of this research relates to excluding participants based on their memory of, or their attention paid to, the case. In order to determine how common this exclusion is, the authors conducted a scoping review of jury simulation studies within the last 10 years across three major legal psychology journals. The review revealed variability in if and how studies excluded on the basis of poor attention or for failing manipulation or general memory checks. In addition, studies that did exclude on this basis varied greatly in the proportion of the sample that was excluded. Recommendations are provided in order to assist jury researchers in future with how best to manage exclusions on the basis of juror memory and attention.     

Knowledge and True Belief at Theaetetus 201a–c

This paper examines a passage in the Theaetetus (201a–c) where Plato distinguishes knowledge from true belief by appealing to the example of a jury hearing a case. While the jurors may have true belief, Socrates puts forward two reasons why they cannot achieve knowledge. The reasons for this nescience have typically been taken to be in tension with each other (most notably by Myles Burnyeat). This paper proposes a solution to the putative difficulty by arguing that what links the two cases of nescience is that in neither case do the jurors act from an epistemic virtue and that doing so is a necessary condition of knowledge. Appreciating that it is a necessary condition of knowledge that it be the result of an epistemic agent's agency in a distinctive way provides a satisfying solution to the difficulty Burnyeat detected and also does justice to an otherwise neglected aspect of Plato's epistemology: his talk of cognitive capacities and virtues and his focus on what it is that is active and passive in epistemic processes.     

Linkage Analysis as Evidence in Court: A Thematic Analysis of Mock Juror Deliberations

Linkage analysis has, albeit occasionally, been presented in courts across the world as evidence that a series of offences possess behavioural similarities and distinctiveness from other offences, meaning they have probably been committed by the same individual. It is therefore imperative to ascertain how linkage analysis is regarded by juries within the context of deliberations. Three groups of participants (N = 22) eligible for jury duty in England and Wales viewed a simulated rape and murder trial derived from an actual South African case. Linkage analysis formed the sole evidence against the defendant in the two later offences, although DNA matches and eyewitness identifications of the defendant were present in the two earlier offences. Participant deliberations were recorded and subjected to thematic analysis. Five themes were discovered: behavioural consistencies and inconsistencies, physical versus case linkage evidence, barriers to admissibility, potential uses of linkage analysis, and dependence of lay knowledge. Jurors' over‐reliance on erroneous lay knowledge contributed to their conclusion that linkage analysis is, at present, unrepresentative evidence that cannot independently indicate a defendant's culpability. However, participants believed that linkage analysis could be a useful tool within investigations and, with further research evidence, in court in England and Wales. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Democratic Answers to Complex Questions – An Epistemic Perspective

This paper addresses a problem for theories of epistemic democracy. In a decision on a complex issue which can be decomposed into several parts, a collective can use different voting procedures: Either its members vote on each sub-question and the answers that gain majority support are used as premises for the conclusion on the main issue (premise based-procedure, pbp), or the vote is conducted on the main issue itself (conclusion-based procedure, cbp). The two procedures can lead to different results. We investigate which of these procedures is better as a truth-tracker, assuming that there exists a true answer to be reached. On the basis of the Condorcet jury theorem, we show that the pbp is universally superior if the objective is to reach truth for the right reasons. If one instead is after truth for whatever reasons, right or wrong, there will be cases in which the cbp is more reliable, even though, for the most part, the pbp still is to be preferred.     

The influence of lawyers' questions on witness accuracy,confidence, and reaction times and on mock jurors' interpretation of witness accuracy

Two studies demonstrate the influence of lawyers' complex questions on mock‐witness accuracy, confidence, and reaction times and on the interpretation of witness accuracy by mock jurors. In study one, 32 mock witnesses were shown a short film and then questioned either with lawyers' complex questions or simple alternatives. In Study 2, 20 mock jurors viewed video footage of the mock witnesses assigned to each of the two previous conditions and were asked to rate their confidence in the witnesses' answers. The findings of the two studies indicated that lawyers' use of confusing questions reduce not only accuracy but also speed of response and both witnesses' and jurors' ability to determine accuracy. The implication of these findings is straightforward, lawyers should ask simple questions wherever possible. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.