The electorate is quite divided and has been for some time. Tribalism has outranked discernment, as the most important question these days seems to be which side are you on regardless of what occurred or what was said. A trial by a jury of your peers is supposed to get at the truth, and whether one side carried their burden of proof. Jurors are asked to be open-minded, consider opposing viewpoints and not pre-judge anything. In 2026, the electorate has in some key ways collided with the ideal of an impartial jury, and this has permeated the dynamic in jury deliberations.
Jurors in 2026 seem to “dig in” to a particular viewpoint and are more reluctant to contemplate a different perspective. Views are held more rigidly, firmly and are often accompanied by disdain for the perspective of others. To keep things in perspective, this is not the case for most jurors seated in a jury box, but there does seem to be a decrease both in quality and quantity when it comes to jurors re-evaluating their own case outlook. Deliberations always contain a risk of the discussion becoming heated, but in 2026 it does not seem to take much for the temperature to rise in recent mock jury exercises. The “us” versus “them” dynamic has become more prevalent, as jurors seem unwilling to make concessions. This is crucial since deliberations are usually about cordial compromise with some give and take. Again, I emphasize that most juries come to the right conclusion and do so in a respectful and deliberative manner. But a sizeable segment of juries today appears to be more combative, hesitant to alter their beliefs and go on the war path against those with differing points of view.
Another blog could be devoted to Terror Management theory, which I believe has factored into some recent jury decisions. With the murky war in Iran at the forefront of news coverage, people are living in fear, confusion, financial uncertainty, and are being forced to consider (even subconsciously) their own mortality more than they have had to in a long time. Terror Management Theory posits that fear and dread are brought on by reminders, even subtle ones, about our own inevitable death.
According to Terror Management Theory, during mortality awareness when existential anxiety is created, people tend to be more certain of their beliefs and more often see things that reinforce what they already believe. Nuance is frequently minimized. Moreover, when people spend significant cognition managing terror, they become diffusely angry and more punitive. This anger is not just aimed at those directly responsible for mortality awareness – the anger is scattered more broadly at anyone perceived to have done something wrong. This could include the belief that a fellow juror is not deliberating in good faith or is arguing based on personal animus and not the evidence.
In sum, it is a volatile time to be serving on a jury.
