I posted this on the news thread and deleted it because it was WAAYYY off topic (sorry).
It fits in here, I think. And I'd be the first to "reach out" to a jury member who admitted they got caught up. We've all made huge mistakes that can't be undone. In the very least, we can learn from them, and take responsibility for them. If one of those jurors came out in support of Caylee's Law, that would be a good example of trying to make a wrong into right.
I honestly believe that one day we will see on Fox or HLN one of the jurors saying they wish they had arrived at a different verdict. One of them will realize the verdict was wrong and that they were individually and collectively responsible for a miscarriage of justice.
In sequestered juries there is a phenomena of "group think". One or two strong willed jurors convince the others that their theory/opinion is correct and the others are coerced into acceptance. They state with certainty that they "know" certain things (law, facts of the case, recollection of testimony, etc) - which after analysis is too often false - and using this argument, these stronger/more persuasive jurors are able to persuade the others to go along with their decision. It is difficult to hold out for an opinion clearly out of sync with the group.
At conclusion of the trial, some jurors tenaciously hold fast to an unsupportable opinion even after there is clear and cohesive evidence that significant errors were made in reaching said verdict. I think we are hearing some of this now.
Other jurors, independent of this group-think environment, come to an entirely different decision from that which they decided in the group. It is not uncommon for jurors who find themselves in this position to finally break with "the group" and candidly speak out and outline the circumstances in the deliberative process.
"Group Think" is something human beings do without realizing it or understanding it, and the sequestered jury must be particularly susceptible to it :waitasec: .
I am a very impressionable person. I struggled in my younger years with holding a personal point of view, because everyone else's point of view was so . . . compelling. Turns out I just have a strong ability to empathize or relate emotionally. EMOTIONALLY is the operant word here.
Over the years I am getting grumpy and cynical and have become suspicious of that sensation I get when someone else's POV starts causing my personal ground to tremble. I have to ask myself, is it reason or fact that is swaying me, or is it how compelling and gratifying it feels to me, emotionally?
This is my personal opinion, but folks who "lose" themselves like this have a psychological profile. I think this profile can be targeted and exploited, and yeah I sound paranoid but I think we live in a soup of targeting and exploitation.
The remedy is simply to mature and grow as an individual, take risks and learn to live with the consequences of your choices.
Apparently, by deliberate targeting and a perfect storm of bad luck, we got a jury of vulnerable people (read: sheep). And my paranoia :crazy: suggests to me this was deliberate, on the part of the jury consultants used by the defense.
