Juries Are Not Unbiased & Analytical People!!
Wednesday. Poor sick Debbie was forced by law.She left early morning to do her civic duty as a Jury and came back home tired. Opposite sides lawyers were asking questions of the jury (yet to be selected) from the assembled prospective juries. The questions were like 1.Are you a victim of a crime ever?, 2. Do you think police officers are manipulate? (May be pertinent to this case). Well it is true they want to know whether the jury has a prejudice. Prejudiced people are not picked as a jury inorder to bring a fair trail. Debbie came back home and mentioned to me that how surprised she was to know that how many of the juries said that they were never victims of any crime whereas she in many instances were. One time her car was broken in,and ... I was one time filing a complaint to a police officer for money ($300) stolen from my wallet but wallet was returned to me by the air crew when I flew to Honolulu, Hawaii for my honeymoon. Are these juries all saying the truth? or Are did they forgot about their victimization? or Are is this juries a rare sample? We all know bigger cases will have probably jury selection like the movie "Runaway Jury" in which experts completely analyzes your background and prejudice and makes the recommendations to the lawyers to pick the jury.
My mind drifted to the book named Mind Wide Open which I read two years back and in which for the first time in my life I came across the term "Amygdala" which is the small almond shaped group of neurons with plays a substantial part in memory of emotional states. This small guy can make even a strong analytical mind like Issac Newton to get agitated/fear-driven decision when a scenario (emotionally distressed which is recorded in amygdala) or similar scenario is even narrated in the court case. Does this lawyers are capable of seeing this factors which could bias a jury very well. Well to see this the lawyers has to use FMRI, Biofeedback devices which is impossible in a court room setting.:-)
My point of the day came When I started thinking about one of the most amazing and influential books written on social psychology The Crowd by Gustave Lebon which I read few weeks back. This book was used extensively by heinous dictators Hitler and Mussolini. Two themes relevant to my discussion is Gustave says 1. If you take an extremey Intelligent man and put him in a crowd then his decision making abilities are equal to that of the normal humans in the crowd. 2. Crowds decisions are easily preyed by emotional statements and reasoning doesn't even stand a chance in that occassion. Whereas as an Individual hearing to the same thing without seeing others reaction you would have more reasoning ability. Now you could see why Hitler and Mussolini would have loved this book.
That being said even if juries are selected wonderfully with experts advise you could see they (juries) are all put together as a group in an American Court. Moreover the lawyers ain't helping them analyze the case with just reasoning because of bringing emotion and emotional examples in to arguments. So how do you expect the juries to make an Impartial and RATIONAL VERDICT.We all know in some cases juries are not let to go home and are held in hotel rooms to avoid the influence by media in their decisions. I agree with that (Even though I don't want debbie to be locked away from me for any case) But what about the current courtrooms where Juries are crowds.
My strong recommendation: Juries should all be separated even in the courtroom while listening to the arguments by atleast booths (Prevents one jury seeing the other and their face and reactions) and to sit alone and make their decisions and vote and then they all could convene at the end before passing the verdict to the Judge. This way the Wisdom of the Crowds works excellent. (To know about the wisdom of crowds check my June 15th 2008 posting).
My mind drifted to the book named Mind Wide Open which I read two years back and in which for the first time in my life I came across the term "Amygdala" which is the small almond shaped group of neurons with plays a substantial part in memory of emotional states. This small guy can make even a strong analytical mind like Issac Newton to get agitated/fear-driven decision when a scenario (emotionally distressed which is recorded in amygdala) or similar scenario is even narrated in the court case. Does this lawyers are capable of seeing this factors which could bias a jury very well. Well to see this the lawyers has to use FMRI, Biofeedback devices which is impossible in a court room setting.:-)
My point of the day came When I started thinking about one of the most amazing and influential books written on social psychology The Crowd by Gustave Lebon which I read few weeks back. This book was used extensively by heinous dictators Hitler and Mussolini. Two themes relevant to my discussion is Gustave says 1. If you take an extremey Intelligent man and put him in a crowd then his decision making abilities are equal to that of the normal humans in the crowd. 2. Crowds decisions are easily preyed by emotional statements and reasoning doesn't even stand a chance in that occassion. Whereas as an Individual hearing to the same thing without seeing others reaction you would have more reasoning ability. Now you could see why Hitler and Mussolini would have loved this book.
That being said even if juries are selected wonderfully with experts advise you could see they (juries) are all put together as a group in an American Court. Moreover the lawyers ain't helping them analyze the case with just reasoning because of bringing emotion and emotional examples in to arguments. So how do you expect the juries to make an Impartial and RATIONAL VERDICT.We all know in some cases juries are not let to go home and are held in hotel rooms to avoid the influence by media in their decisions. I agree with that (Even though I don't want debbie to be locked away from me for any case) But what about the current courtrooms where Juries are crowds.
My strong recommendation: Juries should all be separated even in the courtroom while listening to the arguments by atleast booths (Prevents one jury seeing the other and their face and reactions) and to sit alone and make their decisions and vote and then they all could convene at the end before passing the verdict to the Judge. This way the Wisdom of the Crowds works excellent. (To know about the wisdom of crowds check my June 15th 2008 posting).