As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
The New Face Of [Jury Selection]
AngelHedgie
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So, the New York Times had an interesting article on the evolution of voir dire in modern trials, accompanied by an interactive simulator developed with the help of a jury consultant.
(The quiz is worth running through now - it won't take long, and the results you get will be worth considering.)
The things that stood out for me:
One, the focus on a questionnaire over in person analysis. I think that this is because a prospective juror might feel they have to answer as they think the court wants in person, as opposed to answering how they actually feel. There's also the aspect of catching a prospective juror in a discrepancy between the questionnaire and in person statements.
Two, the focus not just on how a prospective juror leans, but also on how influential they would be in the jury. Several of the questions in the quiz served to "intensify" bias, shifting the "weight" of my assumed leaning based on how influential they thought I would be.
Third, and probably most interesting, is how imprecise the process is. According to the quiz, I would be struck by the plaintiff, for being overly biased towards the defense. Yet considering the scenario presented (a trial over fiduciary misconduct by an investment bank), I would more naturally lean towards the plaintiff. The assumptions that drive these questions might work in broad strokes, but they really don't feel granular enough.
(The quiz is worth running through now - it won't take long, and the results you get will be worth considering.)
The things that stood out for me:
One, the focus on a questionnaire over in person analysis. I think that this is because a prospective juror might feel they have to answer as they think the court wants in person, as opposed to answering how they actually feel. There's also the aspect of catching a prospective juror in a discrepancy between the questionnaire and in person statements.
Two, the focus not just on how a prospective juror leans, but also on how influential they would be in the jury. Several of the questions in the quiz served to "intensify" bias, shifting the "weight" of my assumed leaning based on how influential they thought I would be.
Third, and probably most interesting, is how imprecise the process is. According to the quiz, I would be struck by the plaintiff, for being overly biased towards the defense. Yet considering the scenario presented (a trial over fiduciary misconduct by an investment bank), I would more naturally lean towards the plaintiff. The assumptions that drive these questions might work in broad strokes, but they really don't feel granular enough.
XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
0
Posts
For example, I'm pretty sure I was excluded because I answered "yes" to the question, "have you ever been the victim of a crime?"
Now, I'd be willing to bet that everyone has at one point or another in their lives been a victim of a crime. Theft, assault, fraud, whatever. In my case, my car was broken into. But there was no room for context, so whoever was reading the questionnaire had no way of knowing if I was a victim of some horrific violent felony, or a simple misdemeanor.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
If you watch the slider, it will show how much each question moves the assessment of you. The biggest leaps are not from the ideological assessment, but from the ability to influence the jury.
Yea, and there are two components. The first couple questions move you towards one side or the other but the influence questions just act as a multiplier to your score mostly.
The questions that swing me one way or the other are both ones that can't really be truthfully answered in that binary form. Depending on how I decide to interpret them I'm either somebody the prosecution grudgingly accepts or the defendant rejects outright.
I didn't mind jury duty, so I just answered honestly and got picked, but it seemed like there was quite a lot of wiggle room in getting out of service.
I was surprised that they didn't ask more questions directly related to finance. Like, "do you make more than $50k per year?" seems kinda-sorta useful, but why not, "So hey, how about that Occupy Wall Street thing, eh?"