On the Fairness of Death-Penalty Jurors: A Comparison of Bayesian Models with Different Levels of Hierarchy and Various Missing-Data Mechanisms
死刑陪审员的公正性：不同层级与缺失机制的贝叶斯模型比较AI 解读 ↓
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明
本页整理公开书目信息，不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成，未完成全文核验，可能有误；具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本，未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要；缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录，不合计多个记录；关联记录可能包含正式发表版本，不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零，引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配，同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列，再参考通用方法与发表日期。
分类依据与纠错
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类：摘要以陪审员有罪或无罪的二元投票选择概率为建模对象，并联系个人信念与群组效应，直接涉及离散选择。
反馈分类问题
正在核对关联版本…
代码、数据与补充材料
正在核对对应版本的资源…
死刑陪审员的公正性：不同层级与缺失机制的贝叶斯模型比较
- 研究问题
- 会因反对死刑而被排除的陪审员，与不会被排除者的有罪投票倾向是否不同，模型层级和未应答又如何影响判断？
- 方法与思路
- 作者使用非死刑案件后的陪审员调查，建立含陪审团效应的贝叶斯层级投票模型，以 Gibbs 抽样拟合并比较缺失机制。
- 材料陈述的贡献
- 摘要称，后验比较提示两类陪审员在非死刑案件中可能存在投票差异，并考察不同层级模型的先验可比性及缺失敏感性。
- 阅读关注点
- 应核对陪审团内相关性的处理、跨模型先验的可比性、未应答机制设定，以及从非死刑案件外推至死刑案件的依据。
- 阅读边界
- 仅据版本未注明的 OpenAlex 索引摘要；数据来自非死刑案件，对死刑案件的差异属于作者推测，不能视为已证实。
原文摘要
Jurors who are opposed to the death penalty are excluded from serving on trials in which the defendant may be sentenced to death. The exclusion of such jurors from death-penalty trials raises some concern about the fairness of these juries in deciding the guilt or innocence of a defendant. This article uses data from a survey of behaviors and beliefs of jurors conducted at the conclusion of non–capital offense trials to study this issue. A Bayesian hierarchical model is proposed for the probabilities of voting guilty or not guilty on a particular trial given various death-penalty beliefs. The Gibbs sampler is used to fit the model. The posterior distributions of the log odds of voting guilty for jurors who would be excluded from death-penalty juries versus those who would not be excluded suggest that there may be differences between the decisions of jurors on non–capital offense trials. We believe that they are likely to differ on death-penalty trials as well. The results from fitting the hierarchical model, which includes a jury effect, are compared with a previous analysis by Kadane that took the jurors' responses to be independent. At issue is the comparability of the priors under models with different hierarchical structures. Another issue in the analysis is that some jurors did not respond to the survey concerning their death-penalty beliefs. Because the views of nonrespondents may differ from those of respondents, our analysis includes an investigation of how various assumptions about the missing-data mechanism affect the conclusions.