This post is meant for my entertainment purposes only. You can safely ignore it.
I ran across this piece in something called ‘In These Times’. It’s about the “illusion of juror sophistication”. So let’s see how few words it takes me to respond to this “article”. Just for fun. All emphasis mine.
American jurors, totally untrained in the legal system, are led to think they are more intelligent and sophisticated than they are. Alone, they are capable of some independent thought. Forced into a room with others, they are a disaster.
Especially if you disagree with their verdict.
Although states select potential jurors differently, they are usually drawn randomly from a list of driver’s licenses or lists of registered voters. They are average people, a cross-section of Americana, people content with their lives, unencumbered and blissful, just the type of people lawyers want judging their trials because most people lack the sophisticated skill sets of reasoning and logic needed to be a juror.
Don’t speak for me.
Lawyers often decide which jurors to use in a trial based on the potential juror’s perceived lack of ability to think logically.
It depends on the case.
The jurors thrown into the George Zimmerman murder trial were tossed into a situation, as are most jurors, for which they were totally unprepared.
Except those jurors who get juror training and go to juror schoo — hang on. I’m being told that doesn’t exist.
The defense attorneys outlined their parts in the show.
Meanwhile the prosecutors sat quietly and didn’t say anything. What? Also false?
They were to play rational, intelligent, sophisticated, impartial, and concerned citizens. Without realizing it, they played their parts perfectly.
No idea what this means.
The Zimmerman case was not difficult except to the pseudo-sophisticate jurors. He stalked, confronted, and killed an unarmed boy walking through a neighborhood. Zimmerman confessed to the crime.
That’s telling half the story. The other half is that whole self-defense, legal justification thing.
They signify that the truth may not be the truth, that there is more to the case than one man killing another.
Intellectual dishonesty because he gets it, but is pretending it doesn’t exist or isn’t valid.
The defense attorneys work their magic by convincing the jurors of their own sophistication. The jurors are lead to believe that there is much more to the case than most people realize and only a select few people with their intellectual complexity can see through it all.
Abracadabra you’re a SHEEPLE! Also, yes, they – and the lawyers – got to see all the evidence. You and I and 99% of the American population did not. But let’s keep pretending like you were there.
They vaguely suspect that a man with a gun has equaled a dead boy, but they start to doubt themselves. What seemed understandable is not so simple for the newly ordained sophisticated jurors. The plain fact that a man stalked and killed a boy is okay for the Average Joe, but not for them. Lawyers have convinced them that they are too smart for that.
Or, again, they’re applying the law of justification. It exists. Deal with it.
Lawyers are trained in theatrics, illusion and magic.
And somehow I cannot use any of those skills to make you seem intelligent or coherent. Rats.
Acting classes may be more important than law classes. A good lawyer can toss a dummy to the floor and choke it in an instant.
Top defense lawyers deserve Academy Awards and they always have the advantage over prosecuting attorneys because prosecuting attorneys are the working-class workers of the legal profession.
Okay, he’s trolling now. He’s definitely trolling.
They become prosecuting attorneys for many reasons, often because they are average and might starve in an independent market situation, or because they have certain noble and naïve ideals about justice.
What is this I don’t even.
Notable trials are fights between unequal participants. Only in a small local trial does a person get convicted, and then sometimes unjustly and for the same reasons.
Yes. But the cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.
If they are poor, lawyers even worse than prosecutors often represent them.
Not a sentence.
A person in the U.S gets as much justice as he can afford.
What if the lawyer is free? Then justice is infinite?
His lawyers talked about Trayvon Martin turning on Zimmerman and attacking him and poor innocent George Zimmerman had no recourse except to kill him.
Or, you know, argued self-defense and/or justification. Like it’s their job to.
No one knows what happened during that time nor does it make any difference.
That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you. Also why your article is worthless.
A sign in a French zoo cautioned about the animal inside. It said, “This is a very dangerous animal. If attacked it will defend itself.” If Martin hit Zimmerman he had every right to defend himself against an armed stalker. Again, an armed man stalked and killed an unarmed boy.
Presented without comment.
A course on being a juror should be taught in every high school. Among other things it should include logic, independent thinking, reasoning, and ways to guard against theatrics, and illusion.
This is not Hogwarts, you fucktard.
If a person is guilty of murder, convict him. That’s sophistication.
Or if he’s not guilty, acquit him.
Or if you’re really angry and don’t understand the criminal justice system write an article about how the world is wrong and everyone should just listen to you because magic.