Differential treatment of corporate defendants by juries: an examination of the “deep-pockets” hypothesis.
A study was conducted to examine the “deep-pockets” hypothesis—the view that juries are biased against wealthy corporate defendants. Two juror simulation experiments involving citizens on jury duty were conducted in which the defendant was described as either a poor individual, a wealthy individual...
| Publicado en: | Law & Society Review Vol. 30; no. 1; pp. 121 - 162 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Wiley-Blackwell
1996
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| Sumario: | A study was conducted to examine the “deep-pockets” hypothesis—the view that juries are biased against wealthy corporate defendants. Two juror simulation experiments involving citizens on jury duty were conducted in which the defendant was described as either a poor individual, a wealthy individual, or a corporation, with the defendant's assets being described identically in the latter two conditions. Experiment one indicated that liability was significantly more likely and awards were significantly greater for corporate defendants than for wealthy individual defendants but that verdicts against poor versus wealthy individuals did not differ. Experiment two indicated that awards were larger against wealthy individuals who engaged in commercial rather than personal activity and awards in the personal activity condition were larger against corporations than wealthy individuals. It is concluded that juries' apparent different treatment of corporations may be due to citizens' views about the special risks and responsibilities of commercial activity. |
|---|