Explore the vast range of titles available.

On April 18, The Post's Libby Casey, Rhonda Colvin, and James Hohmann stressed the importance of keeping juror identities hidden from the public.

In this article, design competitions, as they are practiced in Canada, are understood as devices that allow the study of interdisciplinary and intercultural dimensions of architecture. From the construction of the brief to the selection of the winning project, competitions are exemplary platforms for communicating design values. For example, competitor project proposals, which comprise many qualities, including constructive, material, and even political, represent the priorities of each design team, in the form of a place. Jurors debate each of these qualities through their own expertise. In their search for excellence, the competition jury is then an exemplar contact zone. By examining the various documents produced in this process, we can uncover the value systems of the many stakeholders. Observations of jury deliberations and analyses of jury reports can help expose how the diversity of jurors influences the selection of the winning project. Furthermore, in a contemporary context where environmental design is at the forefront, this diversity is especially interesting to study. An environmental expert’s evaluation of quantitative eco-measurements is very different from an architect’s judgment of spatial qualities and experiences. The focus of this article is to understand how such a variety of jurors influences the competition outcome.

On April 18th’s The Trump Trials:Sidebar podcast, national security reporter Devlin Barrett previews the unprecedented nature of the N.Y. 'Hush Money' trial.

While jury decision making has received considerable attention from social scientists, there have been few efforts to systematically pull together all the pieces of this research. In Jury Decision Making, Dennis J. Devine examines over 50 years of research on juries and offers a \"big picture\" overview of the field. The volume summarizes existing theories of jury decision making and identifies what we have learned about jury behavior, including the effects of specific courtroom practices, the nature of the trial, the characteristics of the participants, and the evidence itself.Making use of those foundations, Devine offers a new integrated theory of jury decision making that addresses both individual jurors and juries as a whole and discusses its ramifications for the courts. Providing a unique combination of broad scope, extensive coverage of the empirical research conducted over the last half century, and theory advancement, this accessible and engaging volumeoffers \"one-stop shopping\" for scholars, students, legal professionals, and those who simply wish to better understand how well the jury system works.

Laudatio Ziel des Preises ist es, jährlich eine Nachwuchsevaluatorin/einen Nachwuchsevaluator oder auch eine Nachwuchsgruppe auszuzeichnen, um so eine herausragende Arbeit im Bereich Evaluation im deutschsprachigen Raum zu würdigen. Aus Sicht der DeGEval soll dieser Preis sowohl die Bedeutung des wissenschaftlichen Nachwuchses auf dem Gebiet der Evaluation insgesamt hervorheben als auch der Nachwuchsförderung dienen. Der DeGEval-Nachwuchspreis 2021 geht somit an Herrn Steffen Zabler für seine im Jahr 2020 an der Deutschen Universität für Verwaltungswissenschaften in Speyer eingereichte Dissertation mit dem Titel \"Die Evaluation von Instrumenten zur Bekämpfung kommunaler Schulden aus einer kontrafaktischen Perspektive. Die Arbeit befasst sich mit den kausalanalytischen Möglichkeiten der Methodik der synthetischen Kontrolle bei der Evaluation von Instrumenten zur Bekämpfung der Verschuldung von kommunalen Haushalten in Deutschland. Die Arbeit überzeugt durch eine analytisch durchdachte Konzeption und eine sorgfältige Umsetzung der Evaluation, die zwar auf Basis aggregierter Daten einzelner Kommunen durchgeführt wird, jedoch im methodischen Teil auch auf subjektive Faktoren der Kommunen (,ability' und ,willingness') Bezug nimmt. Die Jury hält die Arbeit unter evaluationsmethodischen und erkenntnisgenerierenden Aspekten für innovativ, auch weil die Schwächen der Evaluation in diesem Feld auf Basis der vorhandenen Daten sehr gut refl ektiert werden.

Evidence about a rape complainant's previous sexual history is restricted in English and Welsh trials, due to the risk it could be used incorrectly by barristers to assert that: i) women who have previously consented to sex are more likely to consent in future, and ii) women considered 'promiscuous' are not credible witnesses (R v Seaboyer, 1991). However, research such as Smith (2018a) demonstrates that restrictions are routinely ignored, meaning such evidence remains prevalent, causing complainant's distress. Despite high profile calls for reform, there is limited evidence as to whether sexual history evidence adversely impacts on the jury. We currently rely on two significantly outdated studies internationally which were limited in scope. This PhD is the first in England and Wales to examine the impact of sexual history evidence on juries. As research with 'real' juries is prohibited, this thesis utilises mock jury simulations to explore the impact of previous sexual behaviour with the defendant on mock juror deliberations. 18 mock juries (comprising 119 participants overall), were conducted, using volunteer community participants who observed one of nine mini rape trial recreations, in which the nature of sexual history evidence was adapted, as was the level of consistency in the complainant's account. Quantitative findings demonstrate lower perceptions of complainant believability and higher defendant believability when sexual history evidence was introduced; with this impact being most pronounced where the complainant was least consistent. Qualitative analysis of jury discussions showed that whilst some jurors acknowledged the potentially prejudicial nature of sexual history evidence, endorsement of rape myths about sexual history remained routine. These prejudicial narratives were typically subtle in nature but tied closely to heteronormative ideals and speculation of complainant credibility. The thesis concludes that sexual history evidence continues to prejudice jurors in England and Wales, thus highlighting the need for further research and adding to the growing body of evidence calling for policy reform.

In light of increasing pressure to deliver climate action targets and the growing role of citizens in raising the importance of the issue, deliberative democratic processes (e.g. citizen juries and citizen assemblies) on climate change are increasingly being used to provide a voice to citizens in climate change decision-making. Through a comparative case study of two processes that ran in the UK in 2019 (the Leeds Climate Change Citizens’ Jury and the Oxford Citizens’ Assembly on Climate Change), this paper investigates how far citizen assemblies and juries are increasing citizen engagement on climate change and creating more citizen-centred climate policymaking. Interviews were conducted with policymakers, councillors, professional facilitators and others involved in running these processes to assess motivations for conducting these, their structure and the impact and influence they had. The findings suggest the impact of these processes is not uniform: they have an indirect impact on policy making by creating momentum around climate action and supporting the introduction of pre-planned or pre-existing policies rather than a direct impact by truly being citizen-centred policy making processes or conducive to new climate policy. We conclude with reflections on how these processes give elected representatives a public mandate on climate change, that they help to identify more nuanced and in-depth public opinions in a fair and informed way, yet it can be challenging to embed citizen juries and assemblies in wider democratic processes.

Jury nullification, in its simplest definition, occurs when a jury returns a not guilty verdict for a defendant it believes to be legally guilty of the crime charged. To put this explicitly, a jury nullifies when, despite believing both a) that the defendant did, beyond a reasonable doubt, commit the act/omission in question, and b) that such behavior is, in fact, prohibited by law, nevertheless declares the defendant innocent. This book explores the specifically philosophical aspects of the phenomenon. Is jury nullification a right? A power? A mere ability? A privilege? A pernicious form of juror malfeasance? Is a system that allows for jury nullification more, or less just, than one that does not? This important book fills a gap in the current scholarship around jury nullification, which, for the most part, has been confined to purely doctrinal analyses, rather than the broader ethical, social, political, and philosophical contours of this issue.