Interviewing the Jury: Three Case Studies from the Tasmanian Jury Sentencing Study
Qualitative Criminology, p. 25, 2011
9 Pages Posted: 6 Dec 2013
Date Written: December 3, 2011
Abstract
In recent years the rise of'penal populism' and the threat that it poses to confidence in the courts has become a serious issue preoccupying both criminologists and judges (Bottoms, 1995; Gelb, 2006).Responding to research suggesting that judges are too lenient and out of touch with public opinion, the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia suggested that, instead of surveying uninformed members of the public, it might be more useful if jurors - as more informed representatives of the public - were asked about the sentences in their cases (Gleeson, 2005).
The Tasmanian Jury Sentencing Study was inspired by this suggestion and aimed to: develop new ways of ascertaining informed public opinion about sentencing; investigate the usefulness of using jury members to inform the public about crime and sentencing issues; and assist policy makers to improve confidence in the criminal justice system. The study, which was supported by a grant from the Criminology Research Council, ran from September 2007 to October 2009 and surveyed 698 jurors from 138 trials. We adopted a mixed method approach that combined a two-stage survey process with 50 in-depth qualitative interviews. The interviews gave jury members an opportunity to expand upon their survey responses and canvassed their attitudes to sentencing, the judiciary, the criminal justice system and the media treatment of their case. This chapter uses three case studies to illustrate the benefits of adding qualitative interviews to augment quantitative research methods.
Keywords: Sentencing, public opinion, criminal justice
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation