The purpose of the Jury

[Disclaimer - I am on Jury service at the moment but understandably I will not be breaking the confidentiality of my assigned trial in any way. I merely wish to communicate some general thoughts I've had about the utility and meaning of the Jury in general]

If there is one thing everybody knows about Juries it is that they are not allowed to communicate with others about the trial until after it is over. This is very understandable as they will be receiving information of great import in a confidential environment. This can, of course, be frustrating to those involved. Jury duty is often a once in a lifetime experience and there is a great temptation to discuss events with others to stress their novelty and importance.

But what are the practical effects of this enforced silence? The idea behind the rules is that unsanctioned conversation could affect Juror's thoughts on the trial. The people you discuss the case with are unlikely to be directly involved but will have their own biases and prejudices that they could easily or even accidentally implant in the mind of the Juror.

This means that the ideal Juror is isolated - a sort of self contained brain that listens and then reasons about what it has heard and seen. However, this ideal situation does not fit with modern psychology. No human is entirely rationalistic. Since Freud and (in a less coherent manner) before there has been an acknowledgement of the existence of the subconscious, which can massively influence our thoughts and actions.

Therefore, the Enlightenment view of an uninfluenced and independent Jury is a fiction. Everybody in the Jury seats has their own emotional and intellectual baggage that will influence their perception of the facts. Yet this doesn't make the Jury useless. In fact it may even make it more useful as a gauge of the mood and norms of society. The ban on individual conversations outside of the court stops specific influences from dominating but the experience gained from living in society is allowed to permeate the thoughts of the Jurors. Whether or not this is a good or bad thing (one can imagine that it could allow certain societal discriminations to take free reign) is up to the observer.