Citizens Juries

Ortwin Renn Thomas Wehler Peter Wiedemann In late July of 1992 the small and remote mountain resort of Morschach in the Swiss Alps became a lively place of discussion, debate, and discourse. Over a three-day period twenty-two analysts and practitioners of public participation from the United States and Europe came together to address one of the most pressing issues in contemporary environmental politics: How can environmental policies be designed in a way that achieves both effective protection of nature and an adequate representation of public values? In other words, how can we make the environmental decision process competent and fair? All the invited scholars from academia, international research institutes, and governmental agencies agreed on one fundamental principle: For environmental policies to be effective and legitimate, we need to involve the people who are or will be affected by the outcomes of these policies. There is no technocratic solution to this problem. Without public involvement, environmental policies are doomed to fail. The workshop was preceded by a joint effort by the three editors to develop a framework for evaluating different models of public participation in the environmental policy arena. During a preliminary review of the literature we made four major observations. These came to serve as the primary motivation for this book. First, the last decade has witnessed only a fair amount of interest within the sociological or political science communities in issues of public participation.

Places the idea of jury duty into perspective, noting its importance as a constitutional responsibility, and describes ways in which the experience may be enriched.

Alexis de Tocqueville, John Stuart Mill, and the U.S. Supreme Court have all alleged that jury service promotes civic and political engagement, yet none could prove it. Finally, The Jury and Democracy provides compelling systematic evidence to support this view. Drawing from in-depth interviews, thousands of juror surveys, and court and voting records from across the United States, the authors show that serving on a jury can trigger changes in how citizens view themselves, their peers, and their government--and can even significantly increase electoral turnout among infrequent voters. Jury service also sparks long-term shifts in media use, political action, and community involvement. In an era when involved Americans are searching for ways to inspire their fellow citizens, The Jury and Democracy offers a plausible and realistic path for turning passive spectators into active political participants.

Public authorities from all levels of government increasingly turn to Citizens' Assemblies, Juries, Panels and other representative deliberative processes to tackle complex policy problems ranging from climate change to infrastructure investment decisions. They convene groups of people representing a wide cross-section of society for at least one full day – and often much longer – to learn, deliberate, and develop collective recommendations that consider the complexities and compromises required for solving multifaceted public issues.

Canadians know that the jurors at a trial decide the defendant's guilt or innocence according to the law of the land. What they don't know is how far that right actually goes, and what the real power of juries is. Sometimes people -- even jurors -- wonder if a law or a judgment in a particular case is a just one. When the law seems wrong, we are told there is only one solution: change the law. In fact, though, in our legal system there is another remedy: When jurors decide that to question the fairness of applying the law in the case they are deciding may lead to a manifestly unfair and unjust result, they have the right not to apply that law. However, in Canada it is illegal and completely forbidden for a trial lawyer, or even a judge to tell jurors they have this right to nullify the law. In the Canadian justice system, jurors can hand down a verdict of not guilty even if the facts pointing to guilt are clear, even if the accused doesn't deny the facts, even if the judge tells the jurors to find the accused guilty. This centuries-old safeguard, which goes along with the principle of jury independence, has protected people's rights and freedoms and helped sweep away laws that ordinary citizens think are outdated and unjust. This power of juries is known to the legal community -- but is largely unknown by the general public -- until now. Gary Bauslaugh, author of Robert Latimer, A Story of Justice and Mercy (Lorimer, 2010), learned the specifics of this matter as a result of his research around the Robert Latimer case. In his new book, written for non-expert readers and citizens who have been summoned for jury duty, he tells the story of jury nullification from Quaker leader William Penn to the modern-day acquittal of Henry Morgentaler, who was charged with conducting abortions. Bauslaugh then lays out the arguments that some people make against jury independence and nullification, and makes his own argument in favour of these safeguards. He offers suggestions for jurors who may find themselves in a situation where their consciences are at odds with the law.

Growing numbers of scholars, practitioners, politicians, and citizens recognize the value of deliberative civic engagement processes that enable citizens and governments to come together in public spaces and engage in constructive dialogue, informed discussion, and decisive deliberation. This book seeks to fill a gap in empirical studies in deliberative democracy by studying the assembly of the Australian Citizens’ Parliament (ACP), which took place in Canberra on February 6–8, 2009. The ACP addressed the question “How can the Australian political system be strengthened to serve us better?” The ACP’s Canberra assembly is the first large-scale, face-to-face deliberative project to be completely audio-recorded and transcribed, enabling an unprecedented level of qualitative and quantitative assessment of participants’ actual spoken discourse. Each chapter reports on different research questions for different purposes to benefit different audiences. Combined, they exhibit how diverse modes of research focused on a single event can enhance both theoretical and practical knowledge about deliberative democracy.