Ebook Civil Juries and Civil Justice : Psychological and Legal Perspectives (2007, Hardcover) by in PDF, MOBI, TXT
9780387744889 English 0387744886 At last, here is an empirical volume that addresses head-on the thorny issue of tort reform in the US. Ongoing policy debates regarding tort reform have led both legal analysts and empirical researchers to reevaluate the civil jury's role in meting out civil justice. Some reform advocates have called for removing certain types of more complex cases from the jury's purview; yet much of the policy debate has proceeded in the absence of data on what the effects of such reforms would be. In addressing these issues, this crucial work takes an empirical approach, relying on archival and experimental data. It stands at the vanguard of the debate and provides information relevant to both state and national civil justice systems., Civil jury behavior has consequences not only for litigants and attorneys (and the jurors themselves), but also for society as a whole. It goes without saying that one of the jury's major goals, if not the major goal, is to mete out justice. In civil cases, justice is served primarily through the awarding of compensatory (to provide restitution for injury) and punitive damages (to provide punishment for wrongdoing). However, ongoing policy debates regarding tort reform have led both legal analysts and empirical researchers to reevaluate the civil jury's role in meting out civil justice. Some reform advocates have called for removing certain types of cases (e.g., highly technical ones relying exclusively on expert testimony, such as malpractice or antitrust litigation) or certain types of judgments (e.g., punitive damages) from the jury's purview; yet much of the policy debate has proceeded in the relative absence of data on what the effects of such reforms would be. For example, a number of states have enacted reforms regarding punitive damages and damages for pain and suffering, such as caps or ratio scales, on the assumption that these measures will yield more just outcomes. In this context, "more just" can mean a variety of things, but centers largely on greater predictability of awards, less variability, and a closer adherence of awards to legally relevant factors (e.g., the severity of the harm in compensatory damages, and the degree of reprehensibility in punitive damages). A number of post-reform studies have demonstrated that contrary to expectation, tort reform may not have the desired effects. In addressing these issues, the present volume will take an empirical approach, relying on archival and experimental data. It will be at the vanguard of the debate and will provide information relevant to the state and national civil justice systems., From Merck to McDonald's to Firestone, high-profile tort cases inspire high-powered tort reform debate. This insightful, multidisciplinary volume provides in-depth case data, empirical findings, and original research, synthesising a range of seemingly irreconcilable legal and psychological viewpoints.
9780387744889 English 0387744886 At last, here is an empirical volume that addresses head-on the thorny issue of tort reform in the US. Ongoing policy debates regarding tort reform have led both legal analysts and empirical researchers to reevaluate the civil jury's role in meting out civil justice. Some reform advocates have called for removing certain types of more complex cases from the jury's purview; yet much of the policy debate has proceeded in the absence of data on what the effects of such reforms would be. In addressing these issues, this crucial work takes an empirical approach, relying on archival and experimental data. It stands at the vanguard of the debate and provides information relevant to both state and national civil justice systems., Civil jury behavior has consequences not only for litigants and attorneys (and the jurors themselves), but also for society as a whole. It goes without saying that one of the jury's major goals, if not the major goal, is to mete out justice. In civil cases, justice is served primarily through the awarding of compensatory (to provide restitution for injury) and punitive damages (to provide punishment for wrongdoing). However, ongoing policy debates regarding tort reform have led both legal analysts and empirical researchers to reevaluate the civil jury's role in meting out civil justice. Some reform advocates have called for removing certain types of cases (e.g., highly technical ones relying exclusively on expert testimony, such as malpractice or antitrust litigation) or certain types of judgments (e.g., punitive damages) from the jury's purview; yet much of the policy debate has proceeded in the relative absence of data on what the effects of such reforms would be. For example, a number of states have enacted reforms regarding punitive damages and damages for pain and suffering, such as caps or ratio scales, on the assumption that these measures will yield more just outcomes. In this context, "more just" can mean a variety of things, but centers largely on greater predictability of awards, less variability, and a closer adherence of awards to legally relevant factors (e.g., the severity of the harm in compensatory damages, and the degree of reprehensibility in punitive damages). A number of post-reform studies have demonstrated that contrary to expectation, tort reform may not have the desired effects. In addressing these issues, the present volume will take an empirical approach, relying on archival and experimental data. It will be at the vanguard of the debate and will provide information relevant to the state and national civil justice systems., From Merck to McDonald's to Firestone, high-profile tort cases inspire high-powered tort reform debate. This insightful, multidisciplinary volume provides in-depth case data, empirical findings, and original research, synthesising a range of seemingly irreconcilable legal and psychological viewpoints.