Final answer:
A juror with high authoritarianism would be least likely to convict if it goes against their authoritative values or beliefs. The unanimity rule and research like 'The Authoritarian Personality' reveal the complex influences on juror decisions.
Step-by-step explanation:
The concept of authoritarianism suggests that individuals with authoritarian personalities prefer strict adherence to rules and authorities, seek conformity, and often exhibit high levels of obedience. In a jury context, such a person would likely resonate with authoritative figures, potentially leading to a tendency to convict if the figures of authority (such as law enforcement) suggest guilt. However, considering the complexity of the question, a juror scoring high in authoritarianism would be least likely to convict if the defendant is perceived as aligning with authoritarian values or authority figures themselves, or if convicting the defendant would go against the juror's perception of established norms and authorities.
Indeed, the relationship between a juror's authoritarian-populist leanings and their decision in a courtroom can be complex. Points such as the unanimity rule in the US and other court systems serve as a safeguard against wrongful convictions and highlight the role of juror consensus in the process. Studies like 'The Authoritarian Personality' have explored how an individual's personality traits, developed from childhood, can influence their political behaviors, including their likely responses as jurors. The trust in authority shown by authoritarian personalities could imply a propensity to side with prosecutorial arguments, but only when those arguments align with the juror's authoritative figures or beliefs.