4 ms·

> If we think jurors are dumb enough to be swayed by superimposing the word "GUILTY" over a mugshot It's not a matter of simply thinking this might be an issue

> If we think jurors are dumb enough to be swayed by superimposing the word "GUILTY" over a mugshot It's not a matter of simply thinking this might be an issue; we know it's an issue. And it's not a matter of being smart or dumb. It's just basic human psychology of the type that you'd likely learn in any introductory course nowadays. There's even a $500bn global industry (advertising) largely built around exploiting these same psychological heuristics. And yes, you're right, that does raise some questions about the validity of the jury trial system. One could quite readily argue (and many do) that a lot of what we've learned about human psychology over the past few decades raises similarly disturbing questions about a great many other aspects of the way we handle criminal justice.

humanrebar 12y ago
> There's even a $500bn global industry (advertising) largely built around exploiting these same psychological heuristics. First, advertising is largely a mass market phenomenon. Spammers only need a small fraction of recipients to click through and give their credit card info. Second, point one aside, isn't advertising undermined by all the churn in the advertising world over the last decade or so? I was under the impression that the question is actively being reevaluated. Perhaps advertising is great at branding (remember us!?) and information (we do this!) but poor at changing minds (now you're buying Androids and not iPhones!). Third, I still don't see what makes these particular examples egregious. If the judge were displaying these images, there would be a problem, but prosecutors aren't supposed to be impartial. And the defense could similarly show photos of the defendant kissing babies, right? Don't both sides do the equivalent in oral arguments already? Why is photo-shopping crossing the line?

humanrebar 12y ago

> There's even a $500bn global industry (advertising) largely built around exploiting these same psychological heuristics. First, advertising is largely a mass market phenomenon. Spammers only need a small fraction of recipients to click through and give their credit card info. Second, point one aside, isn't advertising undermined by all the churn in the advertising world over the last decade or so? I was under the impression that the question is actively being reevaluated. Perhaps advertising is great at branding (remember us!?) and information (we do this!) but poor at changing minds (now you're buying Androids and not iPhones!). Third, I still don't see what makes these particular examples egregious. If the judge were displaying these images, there would be a problem, but prosecutors aren't supposed to be impartial. And the defense could similarly show photos of the defendant kissing babies, right? Don't both sides do the equivalent in oral arguments already? Why is photo-shopping crossing the line?