Jury Decision Making Processes
Open access
Abstract
Abstract
Why do lay judges report near-universal post-participation satisfaction (97%) despite substantial pre-participation reluctance (42%)? Using three datasets—nationally representative surveys (JGSS), a near-census participant survey (N = 5,048), and a comparative internet survey—we identify a Participation Paradox comprising three anomalies: high institutional trust coexisting with reluctance; pre-participation reluctance essentially unrelated to satisfaction; and experienced participants showing lower institutional trust (d = −0.51) while maintaining equivalent fairness perceptions—termed informed skepticism. Process quality, not outcomes, drives satisfaction; fairness effects on legitimacy are almost fully mediated (95.4%), consistent with Tyler’s framework. Taiwan’s contrasting trust trajectory identifies institutional maturity as a key moderator. We further propose distinguishing allocatability (distribution of legal costs) from responsibility-taking (first-person decision undertaking) as a conceptual scaffold for theorizing judgment acceptance—the tendency to accept specific decisions reached through fair processes independently of generalized institutional trust.
Direct answer
What can I do from this paper page?
Use this page to scan "The Participation Paradox: Reluctant Citizens, Satisfied Jurors, and the Boundary Conditions of Procedural Justice in Japan’s Saiban-in (Lay Judge) System" quickly: start with the summary and abstract, then check the authors, source, topics, and related papers. From here, open Scollr to follow Jury Decision Making Processes research, save the paper, or map adjacent work.
Research areas
Follow related topics
Citation
BibTeX
@article{Fujita2026Participation,
title = {The Participation Paradox: Reluctant Citizens, Satisfied Jurors, and the Boundary Conditions of Procedural Justice in Japan’s Saiban-in (Lay Judge) System},
author = {Masahiro Fujita},
journal = {CrimRxiv},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.21428/cb6ab371.3e830e70},
url = {https://doi.org/10.21428/cb6ab371.3e830e70}
}FAQ
Using this paper in a discovery workflow
How do I find related work for this paper?
Use the related papers and topic links on this page as starting points. In Scollr, you can also open the paper and build a literature map around its references, citing papers, and related work.
How can I keep up with new Jury Decision Making Processes research papers?
Follow Jury Decision Making Processes research in Scollr. New papers from the topic flow into a personalized feed, and you can save useful studies to revisit later.
Can I cite this paper from this page?
This page includes a static BibTeX block for The Participation Paradox: Reluctant Citizens, Satisfied Jurors, and the Boundary Conditions of Procedural Justice in Japan’s Saiban-in (Lay Judge) System. Always verify the DOI, source, and publication details against the publisher record before submitting a manuscript.
Follow this research in Scollr
Follow the topics and authors behind this paper, save useful studies, and build a literature map when you are ready to go deeper.
Get the app