Group Discussion Jury Deliberation Room

Group Discussion Jury Deliberation Room

A: Initial Reasons for Convicting or Acquitting Reginald Chase

After reviewing the evidence in the trial, I believe that Reginald Chase should be acquitted. My reasons for acquitting him are that as much as the evidence and facts in the case make me believe that Reginald killed Lucerne Ludlow, his ex-wife, they mostly show that she must have committed suicide. Firstly, Lucerne had cheated on Reginald, resulting in the divorce, which gives him the motive to kill her. However, he was already engaged to someone else, meaning he had moved on, which makes me believe he did not kill her. On the other hand, Lucerne may have committed suicide because her ex-husband had gotten engaged to Paloma, a woman with whom Lucerne was competing for a hosting position. She also had lost custody of their children to Reginald, which could have led her into depression. It is said that she had been seeing a psychologist for her depression and anxiety. Depression may be caused by traumatic events such as loss or even major life changes (Mental health conditions: Depression and anxiety, 2022). Lucerne had experienced loss from losing custody of their children. Also, getting divorced from her now ex-husband was a very major and unplanned change in her life. Subsequently, depression is characterized by suicidal thoughts, which makes me believe that the condition led her to commit suicide. Additionally, she was found dead on Valentine’s Day, which is a day most couples celebrate their love; this could have made her feel sad and lonely because she had lost her husband, therefore poisoning herself with arsenic, which she had access to. Conclusively, I believe the evidence against Reginald is insufficient to convict him. Therefore my final verdict is that he is not guilty.

B: Final Vote

The vote I made earlier in Regina’s case still remains not guilty even after going through my classmates’ views; I believe that the evidence provided was not sufficient to convict Regina of the murder of his ex-wife. Most group A members believe that Regina should be acquitted; however, two of the members still felt like the evidence provided was enough to convict him since the facts shown gave Regina the motive to kill Lucerne. For example, Regina’s GPS location showed that in the early morning of February 14, he was in Beverly Hills, where Lucerne was found dead. However, most jury members argued that the GPS data shows that he was in Beverly Hills but not Lucerne’s residence at the time of her death. The majority jury may change the viewpoint of the minority jurors if they are consistent with providing their argument. Subsequently, the majority of the group members tried to persuade the two to rethink their decisions by giving them facts and reasons why they should be on their side, to which they conformed (Lively 2017).

C

I was not too surprised that my group’s final decision was ” not guilty.”. this is so even after the other group had most members voting not guilty while the others voted guilty. I have no question about our final vote since I am convinced that the evidence provided is not sufficient to convict Regina of the ex-wife’s murder. However, those who voted guilty in group B got me asking questions on why they leaned towards that side since the evidence was circumstantial and, therefore, not concrete enough to convict Regina.

An example of groupthink is the process of deliberation our group had while trying to determine who committed the crime. Groupthink means that in order to maintain harmony and unity within a group, the majority always controls the outcomes and frequently ignores and overlooks opposing views and voices of a single person or a small number of people (Kishore 2020). Groupthink encouraged conformity in our group, evidenced by the fact that, initially, two of our group members believed that Regina should be convicted, but with more persuasion and being presented with more facts; they conformed with the majority of the group members. Social influence elements come into play in a variety of group contexts and have an impact on how people make decisions (Lively 2017). In society, groupthink may be seen in a setting where a particular minority group decides not to speak up about a particular issue affecting them due to the fear of being separated. Groupthink negatively impacts society because it obstructs individuality, which makes people less creative and unique, resulting in stagnation in the development of a community. A society may also fail to change socially even when the change is necessary because of groupthink; this is because groupthink may lead people to resist change or new information and even fail to listen to differing information.

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022, September 14). Mental health conditions: Depression and anxiety. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved March 10, 2023, from https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/diseases/depression-anxiety.html

Lively, C. (2017). How social influence factors might impact the jury. Retrieved March 10, 2023, from https://www.mun.ca/psychology/media/production/memorial/academic/faculty-of-science/psychology/media-library/research/brl/Lively_LRAPub_2017.pdf

Kishore, K. (2020, November 6). What is groupthink? Harappa. Retrieved March 14, 2023, from https://harappa.education/harappa-diaries/what-is-groupthink/#:~:text=Examples%20Of%20Groupthink&text=You%20choose%20not%20to%20speak,the%20midst%20of%20a%20majority.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Prompt : Major movie star Reginald Chase is on trial for the murder of his ex-wife, media personality Lucerne Ludlow. You and your group (Group A) are the jury assigned to this case.

Group Discussion Jury Deliberation Room

You and the other members of the jury are somewhat familiar with who these celebrities are, but you are not familiar with the details of the case. (In order to qualify for a jury, jurors must not come to a trial knowing the particulars of the case.)
State your initial reasons for convicting or acquitting Reginald Chase

ONE PARAGRAPH ON THIS ^^^
———————————————
———-
THE SECOND PARAGRAPH ANSWER THE PROMPT BELOW: You will read through your classmates and submit your Final Vote.
This paragraph is about if I still think he is guilty or if thoughts have changed and I believe he is not guilty.

I am in group A and I have attached the facts BELOW about the case and YOU CAN FIND MATERIAL WITHIN MODULE 6.
APA 7TH EDITION
DUE TOMORROW 3/9/2023
REMEMBER TWO SEPARATE PARAGRAPHS – THEY WILL BE POSTED AT TWO SEPARATE TIMES
IN-TEXT CITATIONS AND REFERENCES ARE REQUIRED
ESPECIALLY FOR THE SECOND Paragraph
UTILIZE READING MATERIAL / SHAPIRO LIBRARY IF NEEDED
[email protected]
Bellaswan27!
PLEASE READ RUBRIC TO BETTER UNDERSTAND

HERE ARE THE FACTS ABOUT CASE

PSY 530 Groupthink Activity Learning Aid: Facts of the Case
These facts have been presented as evidence in the trial of Reginald Chase for the murder of Lucerne
Ludlow. Use them in considering your verdict.
 Lucerne was found deceased on the morning of Valentine’s Day in her Beverly Hills mansion.
 The coroner ruled the cause of Lucerne’s death to be arsenic poisoning.
 Reginald had access to high quantities of arsenic due to a rat infestation in his Malibu beach
home.
 Lucerne also had access to high quantities of arsenic due to a rat infestation in her mansion.
 On February 13, Reginald posted a cryptic message on social media. Quote: “Cheaters never
win.”
 GPS data from Reginald’s smartphone reveals he was in Beverly Hills in the early morning of
February 14.
 Lucerne cheated on Reginald with his best friend, Patrick Justice, prior to their divorce.
 Reginald won custody of the couple’s two children in the divorce.
 Before her death, Lucerne was seeing a psychologist for depression and anxiety.
 Reginald recently became engaged to celebrity chef Paloma Pillsbury, whom Lucerne was
competing against for a hosting position on a hot new reality TV show.
 Paloma and Lucerne had a very public disagreement in an elevator at the most recent Oscars
after-party.
 Reginald’s most recent film, a glitzy film adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Beautiful and the
Damned was a critical and financial flop