your judgement
 

You and 11 other people are selected for a jury. Random slice of citizenry here.

Compared to you, of the 11 others, how many of them do you assume have an inferior sense of judgment?

I voted, but I have to warn you it's only a guess, as I've never served on a jury, and won't have to for at least another 10 years, probably more.

Everyone, sad to say. I don't think it's really true, but that's my knee-jerk reaction.

Make that . . . jerk reaction.

I voted seven people have impaired judgment. I am being generous to the ill-informed right-sayers.

I've served on a jury, and voted according to that experience. Just kept saying, "The law, people, back to the law and the judge's instructions, leave your emotional reactions to the offense in your crib."

I'm not sure. I would have assumed it would be somewhere in the 4-6 range. But my experience actually serving on one was it was actually 0. Everybody examined the cases from the prosecution and defense critically, separated their own personal feelings from the judge's instructions, and listened to differing opinions from other jurors with consideration and respect.

It was probably an aberration.

Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people, most are idiots.

Yes, I voted 11. Not unlike Cloud's knee-jerk reaction. Let's be knee-jerks together, k Cloud?

I voted 11 too.
Just based on the rubbish, urban myths presented as truth and downright lies I overhear on a daily basis.

But I suppose I'm not really much better in that I make snap judgements and leave it up to other people to prove me wrong. In a courtroom I'd listen for all I was worth and try to keep emotion out of the decision though.

I'm going with none. I don't care much for assumptions.

Personally, I don't think that other people have an inferior sense of judgement just because they disagree with me or their perceptions clash with mine. Making a judgement of somone's sense of judgement can't possibly be accurate based on one sample of that ability. I don't know too many people who have never made an error in judgement.

If I were to find that all or a majority of the other jurors felt differently than I did, I'd probably review my own opinion to determine if I had any bias or personal perceptions clouding the issue, then either revise or solidify my stance, depending on my introspection.

I was thinking about that, too. It is amazing what some people believe. All I have to do to find out is look through the email forwards I get from friends and relatives.

Jeez, it's hard to say how many will disagree with me. ;)

Hang him! Hang him! oh hai.
;)
What was the question?

The reason why they can't pick me for jury selection is because I am great at judgement but completely unreliable.
I'm more prone to judge the possible sentence weighed up against the law broken first. If I find the punishment not suitable to the crime I'd judge that. Then guilt or innocence. I'm the one in the room with my own agenda.

Put me at a 3. Not great for court.

i assume that i'm right until I'm proven wrong. which never happens. wellll......it did happen once.....I thought I was wrong...but it turned out that I was right. so.....

I managed to get out of jury duty, so......

I put three. I think most people have pretty decent judgement when called upon to use it. Most of us make snap judgements and have bugbears that sway us ordinarily. But, most people I think would take such a duty very seriously and exercise a very careful judgement in that situation.


[eta] if you don't agree with capital punishment and the trial is of a capital nature, would that be sufficient to preclude you from sitting on the jury?

lol! Dana, refer to my post 13.

Maybe we are too suitable to judge during a trial?

I don't think it's ever automatic, but you can bet the prosecutor will be rejecting you (each side can exercise a certain number of rejections during jury selection, I don't know if it works the same over there.)

I would vote for a stoneing. I have thought of a hundred ways to get into or out of jury duty. Never been called.

When tested I generally score in the 95th to 98th percentile. Whatever. But when I have attended public meetings I am always astounded at how most people present are so "mercifully free from the ravages of intelligence."

So, yeah, 11. That's a guess because I know how to get out of jury duty.

Yeah.....thing is, though, intelligence and judgement aren't necessarily the same thing 3foot.

It's awfully hard to have *good* judgment w/o intelligence enough to understand what is being said.

And on a jury I'd hope for good judgment at a minimum.

"the minority"

Thats why we do it that way, right?

When I served on a jury most of the people seemed to have good judgement. In fact, I'd say all of them did, and as has been suggested, I think they all took the job very seriously and were quite adult and polite during deliberations. To me it was fairly clear that there wasn't enough evidence to convict the defendants although I think they probably ended up being lucky that the star witness for the prosecution had a few roos loose in the top paddock. Her testimony was worthless and didn't help prove the men guilty at all. Too much reasonable doubt and that was what led to a not guilty verdict on all counts for them both. Something shifty went down along with a massive dose of idiocy during the events of the alledged crime.

I like that one!

A person is smart. People are dumb.