The Habits of Normal, Innocent People (NIPs), as Construed by the North American Juror

• In Event: 392 - Section on Sociology of Culture Paper Session. Normalcy

Abstract

Deliberating juries draw on commonsense notions of what counts as “normal” behavior in distinguishing facts which are inculpatory from those that lend themselves to a more innocent interpretation. Though this is a commonplace observation, prior research has shed little light on the underlying model(s) of normalcy—which means that we know very little about “what everybody knows.” This article takes a generative approach to inculpatory statements made by two real-life juries deliberating the same case. First I enumerate the distinct assertions made, by implication, about normal, innocent people (NIPs). Then I reduce these to a smaller number of generative principles revolving around the even more general themes of rationality, emotions, language, and relationships. The results illuminate some of the underlying principles of common sense as it is invoked in the jury room, and allow for the critical evaluation of commonsense assumptions in light of social-scientific research.

Author

• David R. Gibson, University of Notre Dame