Unfortunately, rationality provides a strong protection against lies and disinformation but is not an effective antidote to the poison, once swallowed.
Unfortunately, rationality provides a strong protection against lies and disinformation but is not an effective antidote to the poison, once swallowed.
Any suggestions on what to do once swallowed? I had jury duty recently and 3 of the 12 jurists simply refused to believe the facts of the case which were blatantly obvious. They clung to conspiracy theories. Two days of deliberations, the trial ended with a hung jury. It gave me insight into how the lies take over a person’s mind.
Maybe judges need to employ psychiatrists and/or clinical psychologists as assessors when it comes to jury selection.
This work demands a basic ability to follow rational arguments, regardless of whether or not we like the upshot, regardless, in other words, of our beliefs and prejudices.
I believe you! And, back when, juries "in the south" simply refused to convict obvious murderers. Mind you, hasn't worked so well for Trump in his trials.
I was on a civil jury many years ago where a college student was bonked on the head with a beer mug, damaging his retina. Instead of reasoning, some of the (Baptist) jurors said he didn’t belong in a bar anyway; no one did. Result: a hung jury.
Further point, Penny Hood, to base one's judgment on personal theories rather than the facts set before one in a court of law is not just foolish and perverse, deliberately wasting the time of the judge, the court and fellow jurors, it is downright dishonest. Straight questions call for straight answers.
I can't help wondering whether the judge framed his instructions adequately, so that there could be no dodging the truth.
Unfortunately, rationality provides a strong protection against lies and disinformation but is not an effective antidote to the poison, once swallowed.
Any suggestions on what to do once swallowed? I had jury duty recently and 3 of the 12 jurists simply refused to believe the facts of the case which were blatantly obvious. They clung to conspiracy theories. Two days of deliberations, the trial ended with a hung jury. It gave me insight into how the lies take over a person’s mind.
Perhaps potential jurors that are found to have a 'conspiracy theory mind' should be stood down, just as jurors with bias are supposed to be.
Maybe judges need to employ psychiatrists and/or clinical psychologists as assessors when it comes to jury selection.
This work demands a basic ability to follow rational arguments, regardless of whether or not we like the upshot, regardless, in other words, of our beliefs and prejudices.
I believe you! And, back when, juries "in the south" simply refused to convict obvious murderers. Mind you, hasn't worked so well for Trump in his trials.
I was on a civil jury many years ago where a college student was bonked on the head with a beer mug, damaging his retina. Instead of reasoning, some of the (Baptist) jurors said he didn’t belong in a bar anyway; no one did. Result: a hung jury.
-kinda got "what he deserved" eh.... something similar held against women claiming sexual assault..."she provoked him" etc
Further point, Penny Hood, to base one's judgment on personal theories rather than the facts set before one in a court of law is not just foolish and perverse, deliberately wasting the time of the judge, the court and fellow jurors, it is downright dishonest. Straight questions call for straight answers.
I can't help wondering whether the judge framed his instructions adequately, so that there could be no dodging the truth.
Penny, that is a disturbing report.