Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Community Talk, Chatter & Stuff The Lounge 
Thread started 25 Oct 2010 (Monday) 04:57
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

The OLDER Photographers' thread...

 
20droger
Cream of the Crop
14,685 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Dec 2006
     
Feb 06, 2014 10:57 |  #8701

Roy Mathers wrote in post #16667960 (external link)
How can a juror be discharged for knowing too much? Surely knowledge is something that a juror should have?

Knowing too much about the case, perhaps? Or just being sufficiently intelligent and/or educated so as to be able to see through the defense attorney's B.S.

In general, lawyers don't like jurors who can think for themselves. They're much more difficult to bamboozle.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
insufferably pedantic. I can live with that.
Avatar
24,838 posts
Gallery: 105 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 16205
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Feb 06, 2014 11:05 |  #8702

20droger wrote in post #16668158 (external link)
Knowing too much about the case, perhaps? Or just being sufficiently intelligent and/or educated so as to be able to see through the defense attorney's B.S.

In general, lawyers don't like jurors who can think for themselves. They're much more difficult to bamboozle.

I replied just above your post.

In my case, the culprit was background knowledge. I had already said that most of my early work history had been manuscript editing and proofreading, mostly on academic material (the judge asked everyone's occupation). I hadn't given the detail that much of what I worked on was research reports in the behavioral sciences. I didn't say that I also currently read news items in that area.

Given what the judge said, it seems that I showed up the lawyer by knowing something she should have known.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa | Comments welcome

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Roy ­ Mathers
I am Spartacus!
Avatar
43,804 posts
Likes: 2900
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
     
Feb 06, 2014 11:36 |  #8703

20droger wrote in post #16668158 (external link)
Knowing too much about the case, perhaps? Or just being sufficiently intelligent and/or educated so as to be able to see through the defense attorney's B.S.

In general, lawyers don't like jurors who can think for themselves. They're much more difficult to bamboozle.


I think you've just made my point Roger.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Roy ­ Mathers
I am Spartacus!
Avatar
43,804 posts
Likes: 2900
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
     
Feb 06, 2014 11:36 |  #8704

OhLook wrote in post #16668184 (external link)
I replied just above your post.

In my case, the culprit was background knowledge. I had already said that most of my early work history had been manuscript editing and proofreading, mostly on academic material (the judge asked everyone's occupation). I hadn't given the detail that much of what I worked on was research reports in the behavioral sciences. I didn't say that I also currently read news items in that area.

Given what the judge said, it seems that I showed up the lawyer by knowing something she should have known.


I think you made a very good explanation, but your last sentence also made my point.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
insufferably pedantic. I can live with that.
Avatar
24,838 posts
Gallery: 105 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 16205
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Feb 06, 2014 13:41 |  #8705

Hypothesis: the lawyer with the weaker case will try to get rid of jurors who do well at logical reasoning. I haven't tested this hypothesis, because I don't stay around to watch the trials.

Many people who had been interviewed before I left were highly educated. Lots of advanced degrees, but all or most of those degrees were in technical fields. I wonder whether they do any reading outside their professions. Those who were asked directly about their ability to tell when someone is lying said confidently that they could tell. I would have said I didn't know. People aren't so good at detecting lies as they think they are. Why would you think you were better at it than the average person?


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa | Comments welcome

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Roy ­ Mathers
I am Spartacus!
Avatar
43,804 posts
Likes: 2900
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
     
Feb 06, 2014 14:14 |  #8706

I suppose I think that juries should consist of a cross-section of ordinary people. If some of them are capable of seeing through the machinations of the lawyers, so much the better. Added to which, we do not have the system of peremptory challenges in this country (I'm glad to say).




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
number ­ six
fully entitled to be jealous
Avatar
8,964 posts
Likes: 109
Joined May 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
     
Feb 06, 2014 14:53 |  #8707

Roy Mathers wrote in post #16668683 (external link)
Added to which, we do not have the system of peremptory challenges in this country (I'm glad to say).

There is currently a bill in the California Legislature that would reduce the number of allowed peremptory challenges in a trial.

Everyone thinks it's a great idea - except for prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges. They seem to like the current system just fine.


"Be seeing you."
50D - 17-55 f/2.8 IS - 18-55 IS - 28-105 II USM - 60 f/2.8 macro - 70-200 f/4 L - Sigma flash

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
20droger
Cream of the Crop
14,685 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Dec 2006
     
Feb 06, 2014 14:59 as a reply to  @ Roy Mathers's post |  #8708

These last few posts have been interesting, far above our normal drivel. We have to be careful, though. We don't want to be setting any precedents we would then have to live up to.

As for the identification of persons of a different race, this has long been acknowledged as a problem. Primates are visual creatures. That is, individuals tend to be identified visually, rather than olfactorily, auditorily, or tactually. Being human does not diminish the fact that we are still primates and recognize each other visually.

Upon espying an individual, we tend to note certain characteristics: face shape, eye position, eye color, hair color, skin tonality, etc. This character recognition is learned, not instinctive. The result is that individuals tend to be most comfortable with others who look like themselves. This group becomes "us," while those with different characteristics become "them." The more insular the "us" group, the wider and more encompassing its "them" groups will become.

With the exception of specific individuals (usually friends or business acquaintances), "them" groups tend to be perceived as homogeneous. That is, the individuals within them all tend to look alike. This makes the identification of individuals within a "them" group difficult and unreliable. This is especially so if, at the time of perception, there was no reason to note the specific characteristics of any given individual. This unreliability is well known in legal circles.

As for fooling the well-educated, this too is well known. For some reason, those with higher-learning degrees tend to feel that they can see through charlatans and liars. This is patently not true. A higher education in one area may make make one an expert in that specific area, but does absolutely nothing in any other area. No-one is a universal expert [except maybe Roy and I, and I'm not positive about Roy].

For example, spoon-benders and other paranormal practitioners love to have doctors (medical or otherwise) as witnesses. They virtually always fall for the flim-flam at hand. As the Great Randi proved many times, there is no-one easier to fool than an expert outside of his specific field. You want proof? Give a clogged drain to a nuclear physicist. Just be sure to bring a mop.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Roy ­ Mathers
I am Spartacus!
Avatar
43,804 posts
Likes: 2900
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
     
Feb 06, 2014 15:07 |  #8709

20droger wrote in post #16668803 (external link)
No-one is a universal expert [except maybe Roy and I, and I'm not positive about Roy].

I thought I'd confirm your opinion here Roger, except for your indecision to include me. Incidentally, I think you'll find that the 'I' in the sentence should be 'me':)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
20droger
Cream of the Crop
14,685 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Dec 2006
     
Feb 06, 2014 15:08 |  #8710

number six wrote in post #16668784 (external link)
There is currently a bill in the California Legislature that would reduce the number of allowed peremptory challenges in a trial.

Everyone thinks it's a great idea - except for prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges. They seem to like the current system just fine.

Ah! Everyone things it's a great idea—except those with vested (and fiscal) interests in maintaining the status quo. What a surprise!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
20droger
Cream of the Crop
14,685 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Dec 2006
     
Feb 06, 2014 15:11 |  #8711

Roy Mathers wrote in post #16668829 (external link)
I thought I'd confirm your opinion here Roger, except for your indecision to include me. Incidentally, I think you'll find that the 'I' in the sentence should be 'me':)

Yea verily! My bad!

And this just goes to prove my point: absolutely nobody is perfect!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Roy ­ Mathers
I am Spartacus!
Avatar
43,804 posts
Likes: 2900
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
     
Feb 06, 2014 15:39 |  #8712

:D:D




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
insufferably pedantic. I can live with that.
Avatar
24,838 posts
Gallery: 105 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 16205
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Feb 06, 2014 16:08 |  #8713

Roy Mathers wrote in post #16668683 (external link)
I suppose I think that juries should consist of a cross-section of ordinary people.

Not too ordinary, please. I want juries to be a mix of people who can bring varied experiences to the table, but jurors should be competent in recognizing fallacies and evaluating arguments. You can look up "Kahneman & Tversky" for common examples of mistakes in thinking.

number six wrote in post #16668784 (external link)
There is currently a bill in the California Legislature that would reduce the number of allowed peremptory challenges in a trial.

Everyone thinks it's a great idea - except for prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges. They seem to like the current system just fine.

This judge mentioned that each lawyer was allowed ten challenges in the current trial and that a move was afoot to reduce it to six. His tone implied that he'd prefer six.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa | Comments welcome

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scoody
Member
Avatar
32 posts
Joined Apr 2011
     
Feb 06, 2014 16:37 |  #8714

Tomorrow will be a month since I had my total knee replacement. I had physical therapy today. Been an out patient for a couple of weeks now. I have advanced from getting around with a walker to using a cane. It helps that my therapist is a cute Filipina.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Grumps ­ Photo
Suffering Keyboard in Mouth desease
Avatar
2,012 posts
Likes: 25
Joined Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
     
Feb 06, 2014 17:04 |  #8715

Geez, thanks a lot Skywalker!

Been nice and quiet in here, great for us hibernating bears!

Now the incessant chatter!


Grumps
(aka Jim or JAZZ D.P.G.)
1DsMKIII, 1DMKIII, T6s, D60, L's, DO, USM, other lens, flashes, studio gear (but no studio!) Olympus TG3
grumpsphoto.com

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

1,165,429 views & 256 likes for this thread, 298 members have posted to it and it is followed by 67 members.
The OLDER Photographers' thread...
FORUMS Community Talk, Chatter & Stuff The Lounge 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is zachary24
1574 guests, 129 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.