Jury Deliberation

Juries are tasked with the duty of deliberating and applying the law to the case at hand. But it is unclear whether juries deliberate or deliberate well enough. Factors which may affect jury deliberation are the motivation of jurors, characteristics of jurors, emotions during and after trial, bargaining, charges, and dissenters. This paper argues that jurors do engage in rigorous dialogue which eventually results in compromises, although whether this creates an unjust verdict is unclear

Deliberation across Deep Divisions. Transformative Moments

From the local level to international politics, deliberation helps to increase mutual understanding and trust, in order to arrive at political decisions of high epistemic value and legitimacy. This book gives deliberation a dynamic dimension, analysing how levels of deliberation rise and fall in group discussions, and introducing the concept of 'deliberative transformative moments' and how they can be applied to deeply divided societies, where deliberation is most needed but also most difficult to work. Discussions between ex-guerrillas and ex-paramilitaries in Colombia, Serbs and Bosnjaks in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and police officers and locals in Brazilian favelas are used as case studies, with participants addressing how peace can be attained in their countries. Allowing access to the records and transcripts of the discussions opens an opportunity for practitioners of conflict resolution to apply this research to their work in trouble spots of the world, creating a link between the theory and practice of deliberation

What Happened on Deliberation Day?

What are the effects of deliberation about political issues? This essay reports the results of a kind of Deliberation Day, involving sixty-three citizens in Colorado. Groups from Boulder, a predominantly liberal city, met and discussed global warming, affirmative action, and civil unions for same-sex couples; groups from Colorado Springs, a predominately conservative city, met to discuss the same issues. The major effect of deliberation was to make group members more extreme than they were when they started to talk. Liberals became more liberal on all three issues; conservatives became more conservative. As a result, the division between the citizens of Boulder and the citizens of Colorado Springs were significantly increased as a result of intragroup deliberation. Deliberation also increased consensus, and dampened diversity, within the groups. Hence Deliberation Day produced group polarization, in the distinctive form of ideological amplification. Implications are explored for the uses and structure of deliberation in general.

Capturing and representing deliberation in participatory planning practices

In this paper we argue for the importance of capturing and representing deliberation in participatory planning practices. We discuss the concept of deliberation in planning theory, and argue for a paradigm that puts deliberation at the centre of public participation to planning decision. We argue that in order to enable effective participation, the normally ephemeral delib- eration process needs to be captured and represented so that the information and knowledge gathered during deliberation is visible for all, can be effectively traced, reused, and can actively influence planning decisions. To scaffold this we describe the integration of three technologies to create a collective project memory structured against five dimensions of participatory plan- ning processes: dialogical, social, spatial, temporal and causal. Based on several authentic par- ticipatory planning cases, we report that this supported deliberation across planning tasks, communication modes, time and environments. The coupled use of online and offline group- ware technologies created a more expressive and transparent participatory knowledge base than is possible with conventional media, and enhanced participatory planning by: supporting the effective capture and representation of deliberation processes and products; providing a rich picture of the social setting in which planning decision develops and supporting reflection in and on planning actions

Direct deliberative local governance using online media – consensual problem solving or a recalcitrant pluralism?

This paper describes and analyses distinct patterns of 'governance conversation' observed in interactions on a discussion list that aims to support local, direct, governance in a geographically colocated community in South Africa. Although each pattern relates to governance, making 'binding decisions', which has been seen as a key attribute of deliberative democratic processes, is almost entirely absent from the observed interactions. Nonetheless, the exchanges appear to be relevant and useful to the broader process of local direct deliberative governance. We investigate the extent to which the patterns feature instrumental or expressive dialogue, and subsequently support consensual or pluralist outcomes. The results propose that online interaction is particularly suited to facilitating the pluralist deliberation required to manage complex local governance problems. The outcomes observed in the case study further suggest the potential value of an infrequently investigated context of online deliberation – that of citizen-to-citizen deliberation of geographically local issues; and presents a broader conception of the role of online deliberation in local governance, where formal decision making is frequently over privileged in research

The Results of Deliberation

When evaluating whether to sue, prosecute, settle, or plead, trial lawyers must predict the future—they need to estimate how likely they are to win a given case in a given jurisdiction. Social scientists have used mock juror studies to produce a vast body of literature showing how different variables influence juror decision making. But few of these studies account for jury deliberation, so they present an impoverished picture of how these effects play out in trials and are of limited usefulness. This Article helps lawyers better predict the future by presenting a novel computer model that extrapolates findings about jurors to juries, showing how variables of interest affect the decisions not only of individuals but also of deliberative bodies. The Article demonstrates the usefulness of the model by applying it to data from an empirical study of the factors that influence juror decisions in acquaintance rape cases. This application first elucidates a tension in criminal law: even if a substantial majority of jurors in a community would vote to convict a defendant, a majority of juries might still acquit. It also demonstrates that certain legal reforms will have a meaningful effect in some areas of the country but not others, suggesting that rape law reform should occur at a local, not national, level

"Deliberation and prediction: it's complicated"

Alan Hájek launches a formidable attack on the idea that deliberation crowds out prediction – that when we are deliberating about what to do, we cannot rationally accommodate evidence about what we are likely to do. Although Hájek rightly diagnoses the problems with some of the arguments for the view, his treatment falls short in crucial ways. In particular, he fails to consider the most plausible version of the view, the best argument for it, and why anyone would ever believe it in the first place. In doing so, he misses a deep puzzle about deliberation and prediction – a puzzle which all of us, as agents, face, and which we may be able to resolve by recognizing the complicated relationship between deliberation and prediction

Definition and Complexity of Some Basic Metareasoning Problems

In most real-world settings, due to limited time or other resources, an agent cannot perform all potentially useful deliberation and information gathering actions. This leads to the metareasoning problem of selecting such actions. Decision-theoretic methods for metareasoning have been studied in AI, but there are few theoretical results on the complexity of metareasoning. We derive hardness results for three settings which most real metareasoning systems would have to encompass as special cases. In the first, the agent has to decide how to allocate its deliberation time across anytime algorithms running on different problem instances. We show this to be $\mathcal{NP}$-complete. In the second, the agent has to (dynamically) allocate its deliberation or information gathering resources across multiple actions that it has to choose among. We show this to be $\mathcal{NP}$-hard even when evaluating each individual action is extremely simple. In the third, the agent has to (dynamically) choose a limited number of deliberation or information gathering actions to disambiguate the state of the world. We show that this is $\mathcal{NP}$-hard under a natural restriction, and $\mathcal{PSPACE}$-hard in general

Deliberation and pragmatic belief

To what extent do our beliefs, and how strongly we hold them, depend upon how they matter to us, on what we take to be at stake on them? The idea that beliefs are sometimes stake-sensitive (Armendt 2008, 2013) is further explored here, with a focus on whether beliefs may be stake-sensitive and rational. In contexts of extended deliberation about what to do, beliefs and assessments of options interact. In some deliberations, a belief about what you will do may rationally influence your estimate of the value of doing it; deliberation dynamics provides a framework for modeling such interactions. A distinction is drawn between sensitivity to the magnitude of the stakes, and sensitivity to the shape of the stakes. Contexts of extended deliberation are settings in which some beliefs that p rationally depend on the shape of the stakes on p. The dependence is either rational stake-sensitivity or an outcome of rational learning; empirical evidence concerning contexts of deliberation may lead us to model rational beliefs in one way or the other