Jury and Group Think Essay Example for Free

Jury and concourse Think EssayA panel is a sworn meeting of citizens gathered to provide a reasonable and un diagonaled verdict and a conclusion of fact on a legal inquiry presented to them officially or set a penalization etymond on the evidences and the law. This practice is considered to have originated from England where nobles and freeman were accorded the right to be tried by a committee of the same class as they are rather than be subjected to the judgment of the king. The right to board trial in both state and federal proceedings is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The one-seventh Amendment also accords explicitly the right to control panel trial for all parties involved in civil cases at the district level. In the United States, only juries can provide a verdict and set a penalty for the acc enjoymentd if found guilty. This is especially true for cases when the penalty decided is capital punishment (Jury, 2006). This baron ves ted in a venire makes it important to crush how verdicts are formed in the environment of gore deliberations.One way to do this is through jury simulation seek. Jury simulation research involves the methods of research used to show how a jury would react to statements made by parties involved in chat up cases and how they would arrive at the verdict. Some of the methods used are prospective juror demographic research, mock trials, jury selection, shadow jury and post-trial jury interviews. The usual market research techniques are also used much(prenominal) as phone surveys, focus mathematical groups and feedback sessions.The results of these researches are used by parties involved in court proceedings for settlement negotiations and setting up a defense or prosecution strategy that would be induce to the jury (Jury research, 2007). The main strength of jury research is that it presents interested parties possible combinations of strategies that could possibly influence the jury verdict in their favor. Visual exhibits, witnesses, metaphors, timeline of events and other techniques in the presentation of evidence are tested to understand the viability of each and combinations of these for the benefit of the interested party.Psychological and sociological analysis is used to give parties an edge on jury trials. Research of this type has been successfully utilized in some landmark cases such as the IBM antitrust trial of 1969 and the O. J. Simpson murder case (Jury research, 2007). The main limitation is that it is impossible to predict exactly what needfully to be done for a jury to make a decision in favor of the party. In the methods involved in jury research, questions are often general demographic ones that will not accurately predict the outcome of the jury deliberations.Surrogate jurors and not the actual jury members are used to bet the jury pool in the research. Jury research is simply no guarantee for victory in a case (Jury research, 2007). Mo ck juries are used in jury research to try to analyze in a controlled experiment how a verdict is reached in an actual jury. However, they cannot accurately mimic the demeanor of actual juries. The behavior of the jury is based on the personal perspective of the individual jurors and external factors that may affect the behavior and decision making capabilities of the individuals and the whole jury in general.For instance, the pressure provided by the exalted stakes of a case, the stress from time constraints and routine disruption and other psychological stresses may not be exactly replicated in mock juries. Group thinking is the term used to describe tendencies of groups to base their decision not on their personal judgment but on the collective and single substantial decision that may not always be the best given the biases and desires of the members of the group to come up with the decision at the soonest possible time.It is defined as a way of deliberating that group member s use when their desire for unanimity overrides their motivation to assess all available plans of action (Janis, 1972). This very commonly affects the verdict of a jury. This is because, following the framework prepared by Janis (1983) on Group Thinking, the antecedents such as morphologic faults (insulation, lack of impartial leadership, lack of norms and procedures) and provocative context (high stress from external threats) are commonly characteristics of a presiding jury. This tendency to seek unanimity over proper assessment leads to bad decision-making.Some of the symptoms that often condition defective decision making stemming from group thinking include the incomplete analysis and consideration of alternatives and objectives, disappointment to examine risks from choice and reappraise rejected ones, poor information search and selective information bias and failure to contingency plan. Because of the high stakes involved in jury cases, it is important to ensure sound reco rding decision-making by steering away from the tendency to group think. The most effective way to prevent group thinking is promoting vigilance against it.The first step is to recognize when symptoms of group thinking are starting to appear. Group members must strive to retain status equality to prevent a single member from influencing the finished group. New information must always be sought to challenge a reigning accordance to test its strength. Norms must be set to retain vigilance such as having a accesss advocate, instituting dialectical inquiry and assigning a specific member to remind against bias and group thinking (Meade, 2003). The tendencies of group thinking may be uncovered through jury research.There is a danger that certain parties that rely on jury research may prey upon these tendencies. Therefore, it is important that jury retain its impartiality and sound decision making capability to effectively perform its duty to carry on justice in any court proceeding.B ibliographyJanis, I. (1972). Victims of groupthink, Boston Houghton Mifflin Janis, I. (1982). Groupthink (2nd edn. ), Boston Houghton Mifflin Janis, I. (1983). Groupthink model. Retrieved 19 May 2007 from http//choo. fis. utoronto. ca/FIS/Courses/LIS2149/Groupthink. html.