Dodgy Juries, (Un)Ethical Professors, MySpace vs. Facebook
Here are some pointers to what I've been reading this week on other blogs and elsewhere.
As a former law student I was very interested to see this report on the accuracy, or rather inaccuracy of juries, on Psychology and Crime News. This US study compared the official jury decision with the unofficial opinion of the judge. There were some worrying findings. In 25% of cases the jury convicted the defendant, despite the judge thinking they were innocent. In 14% of cases where the jury acquitted the defendant, the judge thought they were guilty.
Scary stuff. It's amazing really that with these sort of stats many societies still consider trial by jury the gold standard of justice. Of course the judge could be wrong - but I'd guess he is more accurate than a jury given that groups are often terrible at decision-making.
MindHacks asks why ethics Professors don't appear to behave ethically. Good question - surely they should be even more ethical than the rest of us? Turns out they're going around stealing chocolates and library books. So, not exactly Adolf-Hitler-unethical.
I'd like to know if they're more likely to sleep with their students, plagiarise or bump off a colleague. Now those are real tests of unethical behaviour.
New ethnographic research has revealed that MySpace users tend to come from lower socioeconomic groups than those on Facebook. More interestingly, MySpace seems to have more 'geeks, freaks, or queers' than Facebook which is full of conventional high-achievers. As the study's author points out this obviously doesn't describe everyone, but it's certainly an interesting trend (via Neurocritic).
Join 22301 readers
- No related posts.
Why the presumption that the judge has superior insight or knowledge? These stats seem a bit out of context.
Trial-by-jury is intended to protect citizens from arbitrary trial & conviction by one person (or a small number), who, BTW, is a representative of the government. I would hardly call it "gold standard" but alternatives seem worse.
In the U.S., the defendant has the right to waive trial by jury and plead the case before a judge. This isn't merely a hypothetical option, but one that is frequently exercised by defendants when legal counsel advises. When less serious crimes are involved, defendants almost always waive the right to a jury trial.
That "ethnographic research" about MySpace is really just a supposition. The BBC got it wrong, as they frequently do on science reporting. Coturnix has a good write-up of it here. http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/06/social_networks_danah_boyd_and.php
Greg, you're right in saying the judge might not be better than the jury at getting it right. And this study doesn't assume the judge is correct. But it's still scary they don't agree more often.
Dr X, there's a similar situation in the UK - for lesser crimes judges are a better for defendants than juries.
Will, thanks for the pointer - some good reading there.
Actually, speaking from personal experience, there are some very important issues to consider regarding the jury system. Out of six opportunities, I have only served on a jury once. I have noticed an almost immediate dismissal of folks with a degree beyond the bachelor's level.
Am I suggesting that folks with advanced degrees are inherently better suited, and their decisions would be superior. No, not exactly. Rather, generally speaking, the less education you have, the less one has honed their critical thinking skills, and the more likely one is to rely on their social thinking skills which include unrecognized stereotypes, prejudices, "Just World Phenomena", and the like.
Critical thinking skills improve the quality of decision-making when weighing evidence.
Comparatively speaking, those with law degrees (and other advanced degrees) have well-honed critical thinking skills.
Research shows that the quality of decision-making made by one individual with well-developed crit. thinking skills generally produces less error than decision-making made by groups lacking said critical thinking skills.
I appreciate what the jury system is designed to do. Are the alternatives worse? I wish I could tell you. If I were on trial, I know that if I were on trial, I would opt for a jury trial if my case could be framed to tap into faulty social thinking. If it was highly detailed with nuanced evidence, I'd prefer the judge.
Interesting article. Our legal system has been known for years to be extremely ill-put-together. Trust me, I know! I've been put through the ringer a few times. And it is also true that Facebook is only available to college students. so that would explain the demographics between Myspace and Facebook.
Dr G, interesting points as ever. I'd definitely agree with your conclusions!
Hi Demetrius, thanks for your comment.