Jury Selection

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Sounds like you are the person with issues stereotyping.

Everyone uses stereotypes. My point was that that's how juries are selected, so the jury process doesn't avoid bias, but rather actively relies on it (with, I suppose, the hope that the biases will cancel out among the jury members).

The process is a bit more in depth in the US as I understand it, since there's more opportunity to ask questions. That way you can better make sure the juror is likely biased in your favour, rather than taking a guess based on more superficial information about them. Failing that, you just try to pick jury members who seem easily influenced or lack leadership qualities, hoping they'll find your appeal to emotion, or the loud guy who's biased in your favour, influential.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by Locke

Yeah, but that process is staggeringly expensive.

It can be, but if it's a major social issue that's at stake there are always lawyers who will take it on, or agencies that will want to intervene.

Either way, judge or jury, you have an imperfect system subject to human foibles.

If the jury doesn't provide any advantage in that respect, nor any with respect to legal knowledge or efficiency, then it seems better to go with the system that doesn't drag dozens of people away from their lives and force them to think up good excuses not to participate.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Teh_Bandwagoner

A lot of companies don't pay for your time on jury duty, nor are they obligated to pay you. In which case the time comes out of your vacation or pay. I dunno about you, but I'd rather spend my vacation time somewhere far away rather than having my ass stapled in a jury box.

That is why it is called "Jury Duty", it is part of the deal with this type of country. It is one of many ways you give back.