Welcome to Thunderdome

On the other hand, it feels like there's a better way to do this.

You mean besides wasting the time of people with neither legal expertise nor the desire to learn? The hell you say.

Malcolm wrote:

On the other hand, it feels like there's a better way to do this.

You mean besides wasting the time of people with neither legal expertise nor the desire to learn? The hell you say.

There are outliers, as you'd imagine - but I think juries of lay people do a pretty good job. I think jurors get over being under-informed on the details of the law pretty quickly, and instead focus on the credibility of attorneys and witnesses. People are a lot better at spotting phonies in court than you'd think.

Troy wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

On the other hand, it feels like there's a better way to do this.

You mean besides wasting the time of people with neither legal expertise nor the desire to learn? The hell you say.

There are outliers, as you'd imagine - but I think juries of lay people do a pretty good job. I think jurors get over being under-informed on the details of the law pretty quickly, and instead focus on the credibility of attorneys and witnesses. People are a lot better at spotting phonies in court than you'd think.

I'd rather have a group of legal scholars who understand the nuances of law as opposed to a random group of taxpayers that really, really don't want to be there.

Malcolm wrote:

Troy wrote:

Malcolm wrote: You mean besides wasting the time of people with neither legal expertise nor the desire to learn? The hell you say.

There are outliers, as you'd imagine - but I think juries of lay people do a pretty good job. I think jurors get over being under-informed on the details of the law pretty quickly, and instead focus on the credibility of attorneys and witnesses. People are a lot better at spotting phonies in court than you'd think.

I'd rather have a group of legal scholars who understand the nuances of law as opposed to a random group of taxpayers that really, really don't want to be there.

Do you want month long trials instead of 2 day trials? Because that's what would happen. All those legal scholars would do is pick a side, then pick the law they think applies and then drone on and on about why their chosen side is right. Those tax payer laypeople allow the judges to really advocate for jurors and push for quick trials, long lunch breaks, and give them incentive to sanction attorneys when they try to mislead or waste juror time.

Do you want month long trials instead of 2 day trials? Because that's what would happen

Long as I'm not involved in them, say serving on a jury, I don't care.

All those legal scholars would do is pick a side, then pick the law they think applies and then drone on and on about why their chosen side is right.

At least they'd be droning on based on their relatively educated opinion of the law as opposed to most people's instincts or limited comprehension of legal theory (i.e. what they saw on "Law and Order" ten years ago).

Malcolm wrote: At least they'd be droning on based on their relatively educated opinion of the law as opposed to most people's instincts or limited comprehension of legal theory (i.e. what they saw on "Law and Order" ten years ago).

Fuck their opinions. Legal opinions are purchased on an hourly basis. Give me gut reactions from regular people any-day.

Troy wrote:

Malcolm wrote: At least they'd be droning on based on their relatively educated opinion of the law as opposed to most people's instincts or limited comprehension of legal theory (i.e. what they saw on "Law and Order" ten years ago).

Fuck their opinions. Legal opinions are purchased on an hourly basis. Give me gut reactions anyday.

You mean the gut reactions that governed our most recent election? And what makes it impossible for me to buy a juror as it sits now?

Malcolm wrote:

Troy wrote:

Malcolm wrote: At least they'd be droning on based on their relatively educated opinion of the law as opposed to most people's instincts or limited comprehension of legal theory (i.e. what they saw on "Law and Order" ten years ago).

Fuck their opinions. Legal opinions are purchased on an hourly basis. Give me gut reactions anyday.

You mean the gut reactions that governed our most recent election?

Yup. And that's coming from someone is vehemently disagrees with those decisions. If like-minded people decided to stay home on election day, well shame on us for propping up a candidate who people were "just not that into."

e: felonies, mostly. I haven't heard of a good jury tampering case in ages.

Plus now I get four years where I get to complain and bitch everyday. The Obama thread always made me jealous.

e: felonies, mostly. I haven't heard of a good jury tampering case in ages.

You're arguing it's somehow easier to tamper with a panel of experts because their opinions will be impenetrable and immovable as opposed to the tried and true "instinct" of the average person? Come the fuck on. This is the same pool of people that: made Miss Cleo a thing, gets raped by televangelists, telemarketers, scammers, phishers, data thieves, and ID thieves routinely, buys homeopathic cold remedies and gets surprised when sickness ensues, ad nauseum. The average person is gullible as hell.

If like-minded people decided to stay home on election day, well shame on us for propping up a candidate who people were "just not that into."

This is an entirely different conversation. The Alien Queen's loss was not because people stayed home.

Malcolm wrote: You're arguing it's somehow easier to tamper with a panel of experts because their opinions will be impenetrable and immovable as opposed to the tried and true "instinct" of the average person? Come the fuck on. This is the same pool of people that: made Miss Cleo a thing, gets raped by televangelists, telemarketers, scammers, phishers, data thieves, and ID thieves routinely, buys homeopathic cold remedies and gets surprised when sickness ensues, ad nauseum. The average person is gullible as hell.

I don't think it's easy or practical to tamper with either. I've just seen the decision making processes by both groups, and I usually respect the collective juror decisions and revile the attorney decisions/schemes that are so-often cooked up with their clients.

Troy wrote:People are a lot better at spotting phonies in court than you'd think.

Studies have shown that people are generally awful at spotting liars. The vast majority of people will usually believe anything an attractive and charismatic person tells them, and usually think that the guy with the weaselly eyes or the stutter is lying, regardless of the specifics of the situation. What people are exceptionally good at is believing against all evidence to the contrary that they are good at spotting liars.

TPRJones wrote:

Troy wrote:People are a lot better at spotting phonies in court than you'd think.

Studies have shown that people are generally awful at spotting liars.

I would suggest that those studies, like the majority of psychology studies, are freshmen in 101 psychology courses. I breezed a bunch of those to get credit in 101 too.

Not jurors who have paid attention to a witness being direct examined, crossed, and re-examined.

Not jurors who have paid attention to a witness being direct examined, crossed, and re-examined.

Now you are double wrong. Because not only are most people unable to spot a liar, eye witnesses in trials are on average wrong more than 70% of the time. If an eye witness testifies that they saw a thing, you will be much more likely to be correct if you presume they are mistaken. Because human memory is one of the most fallible storage mediums that has ever existed. Don't get me started.

eye witnesses in trials are on average wrong more than 70% of the time.

Not to mention that most forensic "sciences" are anything but.