Essay Example on Jury Deliberation: A Proven System of Fairness and Efficiency

Introduction

The system of jury deliberation is reliable despite the shortcomings of individual jurors. Juries make the right decision most of the time based on the evidence presented before them and arrive at the right verdicts. According to Mendelle (2010), there is sufficient evidence to prove that juries are fair and efficient. Juries convict more than two-thirds of the cases they try and only fail to arrive at a verdict in less than one percent of the cases. Even though juries work well most of the time, if the evidence presented to the jury is flawed, then the subsequent verdict will equally be flawed. This paper aims to conduct a simulated jury deliberation on the trial of Reginald Chase for the murder of his ex-wife Lucerne Ludlow.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Initial Vote and Reasons

As a juror, my initial vote would be to acquit Reginald Chase for the murder of her ex-wife Lucerne Ludlow. The facts presented as evidence in the murder case against the accused are not overwhelming enough to warrant a conviction. The deceased was found dead in her Beverly Hills mansion, and the result of the post mortem revealed the cause of death to be arsenic poisoning. The deceased had access to arsenic because of her mansion in Beverly Hills was heavily infested with rats. According to the evidence before the jury, I believe Lucerne committed suicide by consuming the arsenic poison. The facts reveal that she was suffering from depression and anxiety since she lost custody of their two children after the divorce case against her ex-husband. Lucerne may have got depressed after she lost a hosting position on the reality show to Paloma Pillsbury, who had become recently engaged to Reginald. The fact that GPS data indicate that Reginald was in Beverly Hills the morning after the death of Lucerne does not provide a strong link to implicate Mr Chase for her murder. After reviewing my fellow juror's opinions, I find the defendant not guilty for the murder of her ex-wife Lucerne Ludlow.

Groupthink Analysis

Groupthink phenomenon is a psychological trait that occurs as a result of the desire to achieve conformity and harmony in a group of people. Groupthink often paralyzes the decision-making process in a group resulting in irrational and dysfunctional outcomes. In the simulated jury deliberation on the case against the trial of Reginald Chase for the murder of her ex-wife, the final jury decided to convict the defendant as he was found guilty. In our group, a majority of the jurors found the defendant guilty and thus decided to convict him while the rest of us found the accused not guilty and were of the decision to acquit the defendant. The minority jurors conceded to the decision to convict the defendant due to the desire to achieve harmony in the group.

Several implications to society arise from the groupthink phenomenon. The implications of groupthink include pressure to acquiesce and lack of personal accountability, which may result in moral and ethical breaches in society (Dunmire, 2016). Groupthink leads to collective rationalization which makes it difficult for an individual in a group to stand up for what they believe is right. To a large extent, the verdict, in this case, was a reflection of groupthink as the decision of the minority jurors was subdued by the majority. The dismissal of dissenting opinion often leads to unethical behaviour in society. Groupthink has severe implications to social welfare as the breach of ethical conduct can result in subversion of the general will of the people.

References

Dunmire, T. (2016). The dangers of groupthink. Retrieved from https://www.ishn.com/blogs/16-thought-leadership/post/103990-the-dangers-of-groupthink.

Mendelle, P. (2010). Why juries work best: Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/feb/21/juries-work-best-research.