By David Tait and Jane Goodman-Delahunty
Sophisticated technologies to display evidence are unlikely to unfairly sway juries too much. But harsh counter-terrorism laws could undermine fundamental freedoms and lead to unjust verdicts.
This chapter draws some final conclusions from the research in the book Juries, Science and Popular Culture in the Age of Terror It identified some strengths of the studies. For example, they:
- Met the need for jury research that goes beyond individual jurors to include measures of collective deliberation including reasoning and jury decision-making
- Are the first to test the innovative use of neutral facilitators in jury deliberation as a method to assist juries to in addressing key issues presented in the trial.
The chapter also identifies limitations of the studies and points to risks to fairness in terrorism trials in the future.
This chapter is useful for:
- Students, teachers, researchers – in Law, Psychology and Communications
- Practitioners of law and criminal justice
- Forensic scientists and psychologists
- Police, national security officers and court officials
- Policymakers
- Journalists.
This chapter is in the book Juries, Science and Popular Culture in the Age of Terror