The feasibility of expanding the jury pool in Hong Kong: A comparison of legal decision making between youth and adult mock jurors

Abstract

The present study aims to provide an empirical demonstration that a feasible solution to expand the jury pool is to lower the minimum age requirement to include 18-year-olds. The present study compares the following three types of responses from a youth sample and from an adult sample: (a) the ratings of reliability of commonly seen evidence, (b) guilt judgments in a hypothetical rape trial, and (c) rationales for verdicts. Results showed that both youth and adult participants were capable of basing their judgments largely on legally relevant information. When guided by evidence, some youths in the present sample could reach similar guilt judgments to the adults. However, youths appeared to have a lower threshold for being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt when certain evidence was presented.