This worked well in the story because the jury foreman didn't demand loyalty from the other jury members. He didn't any power over them. They wouldn't lose their status or their jobs if they displeased him. The jury was only a group for a few hours and their livelihoods did not depend on the decisions they made or the opinions they expressed. Juries are not permanent, even though the decisions they reach could have permanent consequences for the defendant. Their own "fate" is not at stake as it would be if they were members of an advisory council for the president, for example....

Who would want to be a dissenter against President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Condaleesa Rice, for example -- all of whom are certain that a pre-emptive strike on Iraq is absolutely necessary, no matter what the evidence says? Even when the whole country's safety is NOT at stake, when the decision is what movie to see or what restaurant to go to, how many people want to go against what everybody else wants?