The present study tested the impact of jury experience on citizens’ perceptions of the criminal prosecution system. Based on deliberative democratic theory which predicts the beneficial impact of jury experience on citizen-jurors’ confidence and knowledge in law and the justice system, it was hypothesized that jury experience would be associated with favorable impression of the criminal prosecution system and that jury experience would have a positive impact on citizens’ perceived knowledge of the criminal prosecution system. The present study through analyzing data collected by the American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI), examined the effect of jury experience (versus no jury experience) on perceptions of the criminal prosecution system. Results show that jury experience positively influences citizen-jurors’ impression and perceived knowledge of the criminal prosecution, supporting an attitudinal and educational impact of jury experience. Potential limitations of the study and policy implications are discussed.

We study an enforcement model in which, as soon as a Legislator grants an amnesty to low-rank criminals cooperating with the justice, top criminals react by bribing public officials in order to avoid being sanctioned. We show that, to prevent this form of subversion of law, the optimal policy must grant leniency not only to low-rank criminals but also to officials who plead guilty and report bribe-givers. By doing so, the policy increases the conviction risk not only for top criminals but also for their soldiers. This higher risk increases the reservation wage that top criminals must pay in order to recruit soldiers and therefore reduces the crime profitability (the bright side of subversion of law).