By David Tait and Jane Goodman-Delahunty
This chapter uses insights from a mock trial, ‘the Sydney Bomber Case’, that involved a fictional alleged terrorist incident in which a young white man was accused of placing a bomb on a train that exploded after he alighted, killing innocent commuters in the centre of Sydney.
It asks questions such as:
- How did jury members intend to vote prior to deliberation and after deliberation and what did this reveal?
- What were the demographic and attitudinal differences in verdict shift following deliberation?
- Does group deliberation reduce individual juror bias and prejudice?
It was found that deliberation did reduce conviction rates. Interestingly the difference was greatest in those who were most afraid of terrorism.
This chapter is useful for:
- Students, teachers, researchers – in Law, Psychology and Communications
- Practitioners of law and criminal justice
- Forensic scientists and psychologists
- Police, national security officers and court officials
This chapter is in the book Juries, Science and Popular Culture in the Age of Terror
Another chapter on jury deliberation is a valuable companion to this one.
Other chapters from Juries, Science and Popular Culture in the Age of Terror that provide research insights arising from the ‘the Sydney Bomber Case’ are: