Because minority opinions seldom hold sway in jury deliberations ...

[charchew]

Because minority opinions seldom hold sway in jury deliberations and verdicts, it might be argued that juries are stacked, and that unanimous verdicts are meaningless. Perhaps we should simply have jurors take a vote when the trial is over.
 
  What would a social psychologist say?
  What will be an ideal response?

Question 2

You read a story in the news about a man who claims during therapy to have recovered previously repressed memories that he was molested by his teacher as a young boy. The teacher denies the allegations vehemently.
 
  Based on information from your text on the recovered memory debate, what should you conclude?
  What will be an ideal response?

[lkanara2]

Answer to Question 1

Answer: A social psychologist would acknowledge that lone hold-outs seldom do change the verdicts of other jurors, despite the vivid contrary example in the film Twelve Angry Men. This is not to say that the unanimous verdict precedent should be abandoned, because one lone juror who holds out can influence deliberations in a positive way; he or she can encourage the other jurors to consider the evidence more carefully, and perhaps to convict defendants of a lesser offense.

Answer to Question 2

Answer: It is most likely that the man did not recover any memories. It is more likely that his therapist suggested that he was abused sexually as a boy, and that this helped him to unwittingly create a false memory.