Because minority opinions seldom hold sway in jury deliberations and verdicts, it might be argued that juries are "stacked," and that unanimous verdicts are meaningless. Perhaps we should simply have jurors take a vote when the trial is over
What would a social psychologist say?
What will be an ideal response?
Answer: A social psychologist would acknowledge that lone hold-outs seldom do change the verdicts of other jurors, despite the vivid contrary example in the film Twelve Angry Men. This is not to say that the unanimous verdict precedent should be abandoned, because one lone juror who holds out can influence deliberations in a positive way; he or she can encourage the other jurors to consider the evidence more carefully, and perhaps to convict defendants of a lesser offense.
You might also like to view...
Which of the following is an example of the primary prevention of a biological cause of intellectual disability?
a. vaccinations for rubella b. medical screening for PKU c. programs such as Sesame Street d. enrollment of toddlers in Head Start programs
Which of the following is true about social contexts of language development across cultures?
a. Children in developed countries speak earlier than children in traditional cultures because their parents make an effort to speak directly to them. b. Children in traditional cultures speak earlier than children in developed countries because their mothers do not work outside the home and are able to talk with them during the day. c. Children in traditional cultures and developed countries speak at about the same time because language is almost entirely innate in humans. d. Children in traditional cultures hear more language around them during the day, and thus are not any slower in language development than children in developed countries where parents often use ID speech.