The curious case of the jury-shaped hole: A plea for real jury research

Criminal juries make decisions of great importance. A key criticism is that they are unreliable in a multitude ways, from exhibiting racial or gendered biases, to misunderstanding their role, engaging impropriety such as internet research. Recently, some have even claimed the use creates injustice on large scale, cause low conviction rates for sexual criminality. Unfortunately, empirical research into jury deliberation undermined by fact researchers unable study live juries. The indirect sources evidence used suffer various problems, most important which dubious levels ecological validity. Real research—studying deliberation—is controversial. However, I argue, objections it unconvincing. There moral imperative facilitate real