There was quite a ripple last month about the Channel 4 programme "The Jury: Murder Trial," in which two groups of 12 "random" people were brought together to re-consider evidence from a genuine trial, the exact transcript from which was portrayed by actors. There was no dispute that the defendant had brought about the victim’s death through hammer blows to the head. But should the verdict be murder or manslaughter?

The two "juries," who didn’t know about each other’s existence till the end, were seen discussing the case in their group or talking individually to the camera about their positions. The "point" was to see if two juries, simultaneously presented with the same evidence, would necessarily come to the same verdict—and, if not, what did this say about the safety of the UK jury system?

I was more interested in what it showed about the safety of how individuals reach their views. Some properly connected with what they were hearing in "court" only when they found that they could identify personally with something they learned. Two women who had suffered abuse in childhood or adult relationships strongly felt that nothing the victim had done to antagonise the defendant could ever justify his actions; another "understood" the defendant when she learned that he, like herself, had........

© Psychology Today