Temporal Patterns of Normative, Informational, and Procedural-Legal Discussion in Jury Deliberations

More Problems with Criminal Trials: The Limited Effectiveness of Legal Mechanisms

“…189 Jurors who change their mind tend to be the least confident, not the least accurate. 190 The strength of the social pressure tends to increase as the deliberation progresses, 191 and is exacerbated considerably by judicial instructions designed to undo locked juries, also known as dynamite charges. 192 It follows that jury deliberation is potentially beneficial when the influential jurors have reached valid conclusions, probably detrimental when they are wrong, and of mixed results when they are evenly split.…”

System Justification and Normative Influence: Jury Decision-Making in a Police Shooting Trial

“…In addition to juries' unanimous decision rule, some researchers have proposed that normative influence may be facilitated through a motivation to prevent the miscarriage of justice (Hansen et al, 1993). To my knowledge, the concept of a fear of injustice has not been operationalized, measured, or clearly defined.…”

“…Jury deliberations are useful settings for examining influence modes as both informational and normative influence modes are anticipated given the presence of both task and group goals (Hansen et al, 1993). Firstly, jury deliberations involve task goals favouring informational influence through the presence of facts (e.g., evidence and testimony) and the law (e.g., the burden of proof, judge's instructions, and legal procedures; Hansen et al, 1993).…”

“…Jury deliberations are useful settings for examining influence modes as both informational and normative influence modes are anticipated given the presence of both task and group goals (Hansen et al, 1993). Firstly, jury deliberations involve task goals favouring informational influence through the presence of facts (e.g., evidence and testimony) and the law (e.g., the burden of proof, judge's instructions, and legal procedures; Hansen et al, 1993). Jury deliberations may also involve group goals that elicit normative influence through the presence of other motivations, including reaching a verdict with which all jurors agree, the prevention of justice miscarriage, and meeting social expectations (Hansen et al, 1993;Hastie et al, 1983).…”

“…Most relevant to the present study is the motivation to prevent justice miscarriage, where greater intent to prevent justice miscarriage (eliciting group goals) has been proposed as potentially being associated with normative influence (Hansen et al, 1993). Given the racialized context of this mock trial, jurors who endorse fewer system justification beliefs may be more inclined to believe that the Canadian racial status quo disproportionately disparages Indigenous people, resulting in potential injustice against an Indigenous defendant.…”