Holly Juskaluk J7936283
TMA05
Read through the newspaper article and then answer the question. (1800
words)
The question: Critically evaluate the ways in which the jury's verdict in this
case may have been influenced by juror decision-making processes, stating
whether you agree or disagree with the verdict. In your answer, use evidence
from Block 5 and draw on what you know about humans in nature, plus at
least two of the following three areas of psychology - cognitive psychology,
individual differences, and social psychology.
This essay will look at and critically evaluate the ways in which the verdict reached
by the jury, may have been influenced by juror decision making processes including
cognitive psychological processes, such as the use of the story model, looking and
Pennington and Hastie’s theory on this, or possibly how the social psychological
theory of groupthink may have played a part in the jury’s not guilty verdict.
Additionally, the essay will look at the emotional responses that may have played a
part in influencing the jury, by triggering their defence mechanisms caused by
personal anxiety in regard to the subject of the climate crisis within the trial. The
essay will finish off with a view of opinion on the outcome of the verdict of the trial
followed by a brief conclusion. A jury is when members of the public have been
randomly chosen to sit on a trial to reach a verdict based on the evidence that has
been presented to them for a specific criminal case. (Curley, L.J, 2021, p 362) In a
criminal case there are four elements that must be taken into consideration in order
for a jury to reach a verdict, these consist of, firstly, whether the actions that occurred
are prohibited by the law, secondly the identity of the individual whom committed the
acts, thirdly, the mental state of the individual who has committed the act at the time,
and lastly, the circumstances of the individuals actions such as mitigating and
aggravating factors. (Curley, L.J, 2021, p 370) More understanding of these
processes and how they may have influenced the jury shall be discussed.
The jury’s decision could have been influenced by the use of their cognitive decision-
making processes, such as the ‘story model’; The story model occurs when jurors
participating in a trial, use the evidence given to construct a rational and consistent
, Holly Juskaluk J7936283
account of the crime, using the information presented to them(Curley, L.J, 2021, p
366), this cognitive process is likely to occur due to a number of reasons, one of the
first reasons being to help put all of the information provided into a slightly better
understood context, also creating a story in their head about a case may help the
jurors to determine how the different evidence can be weighed up, despite the case
maybe dragging out for days or weeks (Curley, L.J,2021,p 366). Lastly, the jurors
may create their own logical timeline sequence summing up of all of the given
evidence, in order to give them a better understanding of the timeline of events, in an
effort to make it easier in weighing up the verdict when it is the time to do so (Curley,
L.J,2021, p 367). Whilst Pennington and Hastie’s (1998) results from use of the story
model shows some usefulness within a jury setting, with it comes limitations (Curley,
L.J, 2021, p 371); As individuals have a limited capacity when it comes to the use of
cognitive processes, it seems highly unlikely that one could construct a number of
story models throughout the duration of a complex court case, alongside that and the
multiple sources of evidence on top of legal jargon, it is rather questionable as to
whether it is of usefulness (Curley, L.J, 2021, p 371).
There is a possibility that the members of the jury may have used the social
psychological theory of groupthink to come to their not guilty verdict. This theory is
one in which the members of a jury all wish to achieve a unified decision, despite the
possibility that doing so may cause ignorance to evidence and facts that could
possibly be detrimental in relation to the case. Kalvan and Ziesel (1966) conducted a
research project into jury decision making, the research included surveys of judges,
interview with jurors and attorneys, and mock-jury research studies as well as
analysis of data on the court system (Curley, L.J, 2021, p 381). Group polarisation is
another similar theory that may have been used by the members of the jury, this
theory involves an individual establishing their own thoughts or decisions on a
specific situation, however, following discussions with the other members involved,
this may alter each initial decision and cause it to be more extreme than they had
initially decided(Curley, L.J, 2021, p 380). The rationale for using group polarisation
could have been due to the idea that each individual member of the jury wanted to
maintain the same attitude as the other members of the jury (Curley, L.J, 2021, p
380).
TMA05
Read through the newspaper article and then answer the question. (1800
words)
The question: Critically evaluate the ways in which the jury's verdict in this
case may have been influenced by juror decision-making processes, stating
whether you agree or disagree with the verdict. In your answer, use evidence
from Block 5 and draw on what you know about humans in nature, plus at
least two of the following three areas of psychology - cognitive psychology,
individual differences, and social psychology.
This essay will look at and critically evaluate the ways in which the verdict reached
by the jury, may have been influenced by juror decision making processes including
cognitive psychological processes, such as the use of the story model, looking and
Pennington and Hastie’s theory on this, or possibly how the social psychological
theory of groupthink may have played a part in the jury’s not guilty verdict.
Additionally, the essay will look at the emotional responses that may have played a
part in influencing the jury, by triggering their defence mechanisms caused by
personal anxiety in regard to the subject of the climate crisis within the trial. The
essay will finish off with a view of opinion on the outcome of the verdict of the trial
followed by a brief conclusion. A jury is when members of the public have been
randomly chosen to sit on a trial to reach a verdict based on the evidence that has
been presented to them for a specific criminal case. (Curley, L.J, 2021, p 362) In a
criminal case there are four elements that must be taken into consideration in order
for a jury to reach a verdict, these consist of, firstly, whether the actions that occurred
are prohibited by the law, secondly the identity of the individual whom committed the
acts, thirdly, the mental state of the individual who has committed the act at the time,
and lastly, the circumstances of the individuals actions such as mitigating and
aggravating factors. (Curley, L.J, 2021, p 370) More understanding of these
processes and how they may have influenced the jury shall be discussed.
The jury’s decision could have been influenced by the use of their cognitive decision-
making processes, such as the ‘story model’; The story model occurs when jurors
participating in a trial, use the evidence given to construct a rational and consistent
, Holly Juskaluk J7936283
account of the crime, using the information presented to them(Curley, L.J, 2021, p
366), this cognitive process is likely to occur due to a number of reasons, one of the
first reasons being to help put all of the information provided into a slightly better
understood context, also creating a story in their head about a case may help the
jurors to determine how the different evidence can be weighed up, despite the case
maybe dragging out for days or weeks (Curley, L.J,2021,p 366). Lastly, the jurors
may create their own logical timeline sequence summing up of all of the given
evidence, in order to give them a better understanding of the timeline of events, in an
effort to make it easier in weighing up the verdict when it is the time to do so (Curley,
L.J,2021, p 367). Whilst Pennington and Hastie’s (1998) results from use of the story
model shows some usefulness within a jury setting, with it comes limitations (Curley,
L.J, 2021, p 371); As individuals have a limited capacity when it comes to the use of
cognitive processes, it seems highly unlikely that one could construct a number of
story models throughout the duration of a complex court case, alongside that and the
multiple sources of evidence on top of legal jargon, it is rather questionable as to
whether it is of usefulness (Curley, L.J, 2021, p 371).
There is a possibility that the members of the jury may have used the social
psychological theory of groupthink to come to their not guilty verdict. This theory is
one in which the members of a jury all wish to achieve a unified decision, despite the
possibility that doing so may cause ignorance to evidence and facts that could
possibly be detrimental in relation to the case. Kalvan and Ziesel (1966) conducted a
research project into jury decision making, the research included surveys of judges,
interview with jurors and attorneys, and mock-jury research studies as well as
analysis of data on the court system (Curley, L.J, 2021, p 381). Group polarisation is
another similar theory that may have been used by the members of the jury, this
theory involves an individual establishing their own thoughts or decisions on a
specific situation, however, following discussions with the other members involved,
this may alter each initial decision and cause it to be more extreme than they had
initially decided(Curley, L.J, 2021, p 380). The rationale for using group polarisation
could have been due to the idea that each individual member of the jury wanted to
maintain the same attitude as the other members of the jury (Curley, L.J, 2021, p
380).
