juries-of-12-are-too-big-and-unfair

A discussion among 12 people does not allow the whole group to share their ideas, which is the basis of good decisions, according to psychologists at the University of Portsmouth whose research is published this week.

Lead author Dr Waller said: “A group of 12 is an artificially large conversational group, exceeding the limits on how many people can be expected to engage in a single conversation at any one time. This means that some people can contribute a lot less than others.

“As a species we are equipped to operate in groups of a certain size and social interaction becomes increasingly difficult if the group size grows. Although language allows us to interact with multiple others, it has evolved to be no more efficient than it needs to be.

“People naturally split into groups of four during conversations and so asking groups of 12 – such as juries – to make decisions is unlikely to result in all the people being able or willing to contribute to the decision making process. This is counter to scientific research which proves the more information is shared, the better the decisions will be.

“Without an explicit opportunity to talk in smaller groups certain individuals are likely to dominate any large group discussion.