4 ms·

Juries just seem like a terrible idea in general. Let's put more non-knowledgeable people in positions of power!

by tokenizerrr 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago
The purpose of a court isn't to get the best answer. Its to get a decent answer while resolving the matter with finality. An adverse opinion of experts can be accused of bias and other things that can cause the conflict to continue to fester. The opinion of a group of layman cannot be attacked that way.
- tokenizerrr 13y ago
  Instead they can be attacked about having no clue what they are talking about, which seems to be the case for many subjects. > An adverse opinion of experts can be accused of bias and other things that can cause the conflict to continue to fester Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this comment thread and the parent's article doing exactly that? To quote from [1]: > And juries in East Texas like to hand out big awards to plaintiffs, jury consultant Julie Blackman has written for the Jury Expert blog. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/why-patent-plaintiffs-win-in-east-texas-2013-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/why-patent-plaintiffs-win-in-...
  - rayiner 13y ago
    The jury isn't charged with "having a clue." It is charged with deciding what happened and who to believe. The judge, the lawyers, and the experts are charged with understanding the problem and spoon-feeding it to the jury. The idea is that if you can't explain to a group of ordinary people why you should win, its hard to say that you really deserve to win. You can call the jury stupid, but stupidity doesn't bias a jury against you. And any other jury would have been just as stupid. With experts its different. You can accuse an expert of being biased or interested (because experts are usually in the same industry as the litigants). You can claim that you would have won, if only you had a different expert.

4 ms·

Juries just seem like a terrible idea in general. Let's put more non-knowledgeable people in positions of power!

by tokenizerrr 13y ago

Juries just seem like a terrible idea in general. Let's put more non-knowledgeable people in positions of power!

rayiner 13y ago
The purpose of a court isn't to get the best answer. Its to get a decent answer while resolving the matter with finality. An adverse opinion of experts can be accused of bias and other things that can cause the conflict to continue to fester. The opinion of a group of layman cannot be attacked that way.
- tokenizerrr 13y ago
  Instead they can be attacked about having no clue what they are talking about, which seems to be the case for many subjects. > An adverse opinion of experts can be accused of bias and other things that can cause the conflict to continue to fester Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this comment thread and the parent's article doing exactly that? To quote from [1]: > And juries in East Texas like to hand out big awards to plaintiffs, jury consultant Julie Blackman has written for the Jury Expert blog. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/why-patent-plaintiffs-win-in-east-texas-2013-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/why-patent-plaintiffs-win-in-...
  - rayiner 13y ago
    The jury isn't charged with "having a clue." It is charged with deciding what happened and who to believe. The judge, the lawyers, and the experts are charged with understanding the problem and spoon-feeding it to the jury. The idea is that if you can't explain to a group of ordinary people why you should win, its hard to say that you really deserve to win. You can call the jury stupid, but stupidity doesn't bias a jury against you. And any other jury would have been just as stupid. With experts its different. You can accuse an expert of being biased or interested (because experts are usually in the same industry as the litigants). You can claim that you would have won, if only you had a different expert.