Juries
Juries organized by courts of law are examples of a small, heterogeneous crowd that is partially anonymous, in that the identities of jurors is a matter of public record, but that their behavior is concealed within the group.
Juries also demonstrate the manner in which individual intelligence is subordinated to the consensus of the group - and there is ample record of clearly misguided decisions that are as likely to be made by a group of learned men as a group of illiterates. It is particularly simple to draw this comparison as there was at one time a preference for men of good character and sound mind to participate in juries, and a dramatic shift to the use of peers of the accused, often found among the lower classes. Neither is more likely to come to a verdict that can be logically derived from the evidence and testimony of the trial.
He remarks on the process of jury selection, which was similar to the method of the present day: the court assembles candidates by lottery and the attorneys question them and must agree they are suitable, but seldom disqualify a juror. "As a rule, counsel equally with magistrates seem to be ignorant of the psychology of crowds and, in consequence, of juries."
Juries are strongly impressed by emotional appeals and very slightly by logical ones. Some observations:
- Anyone with an "agreeable appearance" will win the benevolence of a jury
- Juries are lenient toward those criminals whose breaches of the law are motivated by passion.
- Anyone who has prestige will be favored by a journey: a recognized family name, celebrity status, wealth, and the link stands the accused "in extremely good stead."
- The prestige of the criminal and the victim are good indicators of their verdict: where the criminal has more than the victim, he will be acquitted; where he has less, he will be convicted
- The viciousness of the crime makes juries tend to wish to convict, even if it is scapegoating an innocent party
- Successful attorneys "argue but little" or use very primitive modes of reasoning, and instead work upon the feelings of the jury
- An attorney does not need to convert all the members of a jury to his views, but merely identify those who will be "leading spirits" among it and the ret will go along
- Juries have shown an inability to comprehend the "technical details" of evidence and often ignore evidence and testimony that exonerate the accused
- Juries likewise show an inability to comprehend arguments or follow the logic of cause-and-effect, but respond rather reliable to short phrases of high emotional impact
Many critics of government have started "a strong campaign" against the institution of the jury, campaigning instead for the judge to render a verdict. This had previously been unthinkable, given that the courts were an instrument of the state and under control of a tyrannical government, but in a republic, where judges are appointed for their objectivity and fair-mindedness, there is no such concern.
It is therefore generally agreed that a single objective and fair-minded judge is preferable to a jury in rendering a fair and just verdict. A particular point is that the judge is identifiable, and can be held responsible for bad verdicts, and can be removed from office. Whereas jurors are anonymous, cannot be held individually responsible, and serve but once and have little interest in justice.
As such, a compromised has been reached which enables the accused to choose whether to be judged by a jury or by the magistrate, and the choice seems rather simple: if you are legitimately guilty of a crime but wish to be falsely exonerated, choose a jury; but if your are legitimately innocent of the crime and fear being falsely convicted, choose the judge.