4 ms·
I remember reading many years ago about studies where they went back and asked jurors who were involved in cases where it turned out the person convicted was in
by StillBored 3y ago
I remember reading many years ago about studies where they went back and asked jurors who were involved in cases where it turned out the person convicted was innocent about what they were thinking.
And it seemed pretty clear that juries aren't really operating at 12 independent people with critical reasoning skills. Overwhelmingly there are always a few people with real reservations who vote to convict anyway. Those people always justify it to themselves with various reasons. And the reasoning they uncovered were things like "if he is innocent this will get overturned on appeal" or "everyone else on this jury is convinced of the evidence they cant all be wrong" or lots of other internal justifications people use to live with themselves.
- rkuska 3y agoBasically a summary of 12 angry men.
- BrandoElFollito 3y agoA reverse situation of sorts. On angry person, 11 try to make her think.
- AniseAbyss 3y ago[dead]
- rootusrootus 3y agoIn theory this is why unanimous verdicts are required. I was on a jury once for a murder case and we had the opposite problem. One juror kept repeatedly arguing that she thought the guy was guilty of one of the charges, but she couldn't explain why. Everyone else voted not guilty, because the evidence just wasn't there. We had to repeatedly explain to her that she was the textbook example of reasonable doubt. Eventually she decided to vote not guilty but it cost us several hours because it had to be unanimous in either direction.