|
Showing 1 - 3 of
3 matches in All Departments
Over the past two decades, the United States has seen a dramatic
increase in the number and magnitude of punitive damages verdicts
rendered by juries in civil trials. Probably the most extraordinary
example is the July 2000 award of $144.8 billion in the Florida
class action lawsuit brought against the cigarette manufacturers.
More puzzling were two recent verdicts against the auto
manufacturer BMW in Alabama. In identical cases, argued in the same
court before the same judge, one jury awarded $4 million in
punitive damages, while the other awarded no punitive damages at
all. In cases involving accidents, civil rights and the
environment, multimillion dollar punitive awards have been a
subject of intense controversy. But how do juries actually make
decisions about punitive damages? To find out, the authors -
specialists in psychology, economics and the law - present the
results of controlled experiments with over 600 mock juries
involving the responses of more than 8,000 jury-eligible citizens.
They find that although juries tended to agree in their moral
judgements about the defendant's conduct, they rendered erratic and
unpredictable dollar awards. Jurors also tended to ignore
instructions from the judges; showed "hindsight bias", believing
that what happened should have been foreseen; and penalized
corporations that had based their decisions on careful cost-benefit
analyses. While judges made many of the same errors, they performed
better in some areas, suggesting that judges (or other specialists)
may be better equipped than juries to decide punitive damages. With
a wealth of new data and a host of provocative findings, this book
documents a wide range of systematic bias in jury behaviour and
should be valuable for anyone interested in punitive damages, jury
behaviour, human psychology and the theory of punishment.
Over the past two decades, the United States has seen a dramatic
increase in the number and magnitude of punitive damages verdicts
rendered by juries in civil trials. Probably the most extraordinary
example is the July 2000 award of $144.8 billion in the Florida
class action lawsuit brought against cigarette manufacturers. Or
consider two recent verdicts against the auto manufacturer BMW in
Alabama. In identical cases, argued in the same court before the
same judge, one jury awarded $4 million in punitive damages, while
the other awarded no punitive damages at all. In cases involving
accidents, civil rights, and the environment, multimillion-dollar
punitive awards have been a subject of intense controversy.
But how do juries actually make decisions about punitive damages?
To find out, the authors-experts in psychology, economics, and the
law-present the results of controlled experiments with more than
600 mock juries involving the responses of more than 8,000
jury-eligible citizens. Although juries tended to agree in their
moral judgments about the defendant's conduct, they rendered
erratic and unpredictable dollar awards. The experiments also
showed that instead of moderating juror verdicts, the process of
jury deliberation produced a striking "severity shift" toward
ever-higher awards. Jurors also tended to ignore instructions from
the judges; were influenced by whatever amount the plaintiff
happened to request; showed "hindsight bias," believing that what
happened should have been foreseen; and penalized corporations that
had based their decisions on careful cost-benefit analyses. While
judges made many of the same errors, they performed better in some
areas, suggesting thatjudges (or other specialists) may be better
equipped than juries to decide punitive damages.
Using a wealth of new experimental data, and offering a host of
provocative findings, this book documents a wide range of
systematic biases in jury behavior. It will be indispensable for
anyone interested not only in punitive damages, but also jury
behavior, psychology, and how people think about punishment.
|
You may like...
Loot
Nadine Gordimer
Paperback
(2)
R398
R330
Discovery Miles 3 300
|