IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v10y2013i1p35-53.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Judge‐Jury Agreement in Criminal Cases: The First Three Years of the Korean Jury System

Author

Listed:
  • Sangjoon Kim
  • Jaihyun Park
  • Kwangbai Park
  • Jin‐Sup Eom

Abstract

This study examined jury trials conducted during the first three years since the introduction of a new jury system in South Korea. Case information from all jury trials held during the time was collected and empirically analyzed with a focus on judge‐jury agreement. The statistical analyses were guided by previous studies (Eisenberg et al. ; Spencer ). Results indicated that judges and juries agreed on the verdict 91.4 percent of the time (70.3 percent for conviction and 21.1 percent for acquittal). When they disagreed, juries had a greater tendency to acquit than did judges (7.4 percent and 1.2 percent, respectively). Neither evidentiary strength nor complexity had any systematic impact on agreement rates. Judges were more likely than juries to convict across all levels of evidentiary strength. The accuracy and error rates of jury verdicts were assessed by estimates of conditional probability.

Suggested Citation

  • Sangjoon Kim & Jaihyun Park & Kwangbai Park & Jin‐Sup Eom, 2013. "Judge‐Jury Agreement in Criminal Cases: The First Three Years of the Korean Jury System," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(1), pages 35-53, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:10:y:2013:i:1:p:35-53
    DOI: 10.1111/jels.12001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12001
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jels.12001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bruce D. Spencer, 2007. "Estimating the Accuracy of Jury Verdicts," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(2), pages 305-329, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Obidzinski, Marie & Oytana, Yves, 2019. "Identity errors and the standard of proof," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 73-80.
    2. Matteo Rizzolli, 2016. "Adjudication: Type-I and Type-II Errors," CERBE Working Papers wpC15, CERBE Center for Relationship Banking and Economics.
    3. Christoph Engel & Andreas Glöckner, 2008. "Can We Trust Intuitive Jurors? An Experimental Analysis," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2008_36, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    4. Geoffrey Jones & Wesley O. Johnson & Timothy E. Hanson & Ronald Christensen, 2010. "Identifiability of Models for Multiple Diagnostic Testing in the Absence of a Gold Standard," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 855-863, September.
    5. Theodore Eisenberg & Michael Heise, 2009. "Plaintiphobia in State Courts? An Empirical Study of State Court Trials on Appeal," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(1), pages 121-155, January.
    6. Bruce D. Spencer, 2012. "When Do Latent Class Models Overstate Accuracy for Diagnostic and Other Classifiers in the Absence of a Gold Standard?," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 68(2), pages 559-566, June.
    7. Kanaya, Shin & Taylor, Luke, 2020. "Type I and Type II Error Probabilities in the Courtroom," MPRA Paper 100217, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:10:y:2013:i:1:p:35-53. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.