6 ms·
One of my philosophy professors was excluded from jury selection, and happened to run into the lawyer who excluded him shortly after in the bathroom, and asked
by fatbird 5y ago
One of my philosophy professors was excluded from jury selection, and happened to run into the lawyer who excluded him shortly after in the bathroom, and asked why. The lawyer said it was because he wrote Philosophical Quarterly on his questionnaire, and that he routinely excludes people like my professor who are highly educated.
Why? my professor asked.
Because you don't listen to the lawyers or the judge, he was told. "Big brain" people try to play Matlock and solve the case themselves, or invent theories in their imagination, or get into absurd arguments in the jury room. They screw up the whole process that's designed to bring a high level of rigour and fairness to the situation--what should and shouldn't be considered, how the law applies, etc. They're wild cards that turn trials into a game of chance instead of an orderly adversarial confrontation that's heavily regulated.
People mock jurors routinely, especially the ones who explain their reasoning in interviews afterwards. But studies routinely find that judges agree with the jury's verdict about 80% of the time.
- int_19h 5y agoIt sounds like he's basically saying that jury should be pro forma, rather than actually mattering.
- fatbird 5y agoNo, because it's an adversarial process where the jury has to choose between the two sides. On each particular, one side wins and the other loses. Their decisions matter. But here's the thing: their decisions, ideally, should be made on the basis of the evidence presented to them, their judgement of the credibility of the witnesses, and the instructions of the judge in how to map the facts as they determine them, to the law as described to them. We shouldn't be okay with a juror voting guilty because of the defendent's race; we shouldn't be okay with someone who says "I'm just going to flip a coin"; I'm not sure it's a bad thing to exclude people who, in the experience of the lawyers trying the case, don't pay attention and invent their own rationales out of whole cloth and make an irrational decision by the standards of the legal reasoning the trial is supposed to provide.
- denismenace 5y agoWhat assures them that non "Big brain" people won't do the same thing? I think for most people it would more interesting running through the scenarios in your head, instead of listening to other people (lawyers) speak.
- fatbird 5y agoTheir experience, I guess. I know that, of the university professors and professional engineers I know, they are some of the smartest and also some of the dumbest people I've ever met. It's like they invent new ways to be wrong, sometimes. I can easily imagine any of them in a jury room talking complete nonsense about who did what and why and how the law shouldn't be that way or mean that and so they have to acquit--anything but actually listen, follow along, and apply the judge's instructions.
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoA stupid person can make only certain, limited types of errors; the mistakes open to a clever fellow are far broader. But to the one who knows how smart he is compared to everyone else, the possibilities for true idiocy are boundless.
- Ericson2314 5y agoI see what they mean, but still doesn't seem good. I would assume "big brained" witness especially defendants are told by their lawyers to shut up for similar reasons, too.
- fatbird 5y agoHans Reiser would almost certainly be free today if he hadn't overruled his lawyer and taken the stand in his own defence.
- throwawayboise 5y agoDefendants often don't testify at all, it's impossible for them to be impartial and generally they can only hurt themselves. They have the presumption of innocence and they don't have to say a word to establish that.
- Ericson2314 5y agoGood points