"Due to lack of interest, tomorrow is cancelled"
"The twelve individuals the Crown will select as a "jury of your peers" in the event of a criminal transgression should be more than enough to keep you on the straight and narrow."
-- Some wag on The Register
It's a commonly expressed sentiment in one way or another ("those are not my peers"), but it still freaks me out.
Think of the people you never see, or wish you didn't. The ones to whom most advertising is directed - you know, the advertising that assumes you're an idiot. The ones who, while on jury duty, do Sudoku puzzles during hearings or post a Facebook poll asking their friends how they should vote. (Yes, both of those are recent real events). The ones to whom "not for internal use" and "after heating, contents will be hot" are directed. The ones who make their effect felt whenever they vote. The people you hear having an earnest conversation about the latest events on Big Brother at the lunch table at work, or chat about the benefits of magnetic wrist bands as an easy weight loss measure. The ones to whom the systematic application of reason and logic to a problem is completely and utterly foreign.
Now think about the (below?)average person on a jury for a trial about an emotional "hot button" issue (think: terrorism; child abuse; etc) where there's a significant amount of technical (computer, say) evidence involved and experts on both sides are in conflict about key elements of it. The police say the person on the stand is a very dangerous and awful person. The defense says they did nothing wrong, the evidence is misinterpreted/invalid, and convicting them would be a terrible mistake. What are the jury going to do? They'll convict the bad man on the stand, that's what they'll do.
I've seen it.
-- Some wag on The Register
It's a commonly expressed sentiment in one way or another ("those are not my peers"), but it still freaks me out.
Think of the people you never see, or wish you didn't. The ones to whom most advertising is directed - you know, the advertising that assumes you're an idiot. The ones who, while on jury duty, do Sudoku puzzles during hearings or post a Facebook poll asking their friends how they should vote. (Yes, both of those are recent real events). The ones to whom "not for internal use" and "after heating, contents will be hot" are directed. The ones who make their effect felt whenever they vote. The people you hear having an earnest conversation about the latest events on Big Brother at the lunch table at work, or chat about the benefits of magnetic wrist bands as an easy weight loss measure. The ones to whom the systematic application of reason and logic to a problem is completely and utterly foreign.
Now think about the (below?)average person on a jury for a trial about an emotional "hot button" issue (think: terrorism; child abuse; etc) where there's a significant amount of technical (computer, say) evidence involved and experts on both sides are in conflict about key elements of it. The police say the person on the stand is a very dangerous and awful person. The defense says they did nothing wrong, the evidence is misinterpreted/invalid, and convicting them would be a terrible mistake. What are the jury going to do? They'll convict the bad man on the stand, that's what they'll do.
I've seen it.