Re:Uber and Waymo Reach Settlement
by pc86 on Friday February 09, 2018 @02:49PM
(#16343292)
Aren't you proving cbhl's point? When she can't put together a logical case and has to rely on "this person has kids please don't send them to prison for this crime they obviously committed," she's going to be trying to keep off the most logical and articulate people at any costs.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Uber and Waymo Reach Settlement
by dragonwriter on Friday February 09, 2018 @03:52PM
(#16343733)
> When she can't put together a logical case and has to rely on "this person has kids please don't send them to prison for this crime they obviously committed," she's going to be trying to keep off the most logical and articulate people at any costs.
Nah, people who support nullification based on perception of the specific case and offender circumstances are not generally less logical and articulate than others.
You obviously want to eliminate people who either see the law as inherently just or see it as important to uphold the law even when the result would be unjust, as well as people inclined to see punishing your client as just despite the circumstances. But there's no reason, in general, to think that logical thinking or articulateness are, in general, going to be good correlated for those moral inclinations.
Re:Uber and Waymo Reach Settlement
by rexaliquid on Friday February 09, 2018 @03:35PM
(#16343622)
chbl wrote: "Ten strangers that are almost certainly not technical, since lawyers always try to dismiss smart people from juries"
The point is that smart people are not always dismissed. Different legal strategies work better with different jury selections.