Comments on: Dodgy Juries, (Un)Ethical Professors, MySpace vs. Facebook

By: Jeremy (PsyBlog author)

Jeremy (PsyBlog author) — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 20:33:00 +0000

Dr G, interesting points as ever. I'd definitely agree with your conclusions!

Hi Demetrius, thanks for your comment.

By: Demetrius

Demetrius — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 19:43:00 +0000

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.

By: Dr. Grumpus

Dr. Grumpus — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:43:00 +0000

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.

By: Jeremy (PsyBlog author)

Jeremy (PsyBlog author) — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:07:00 +0000

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.

By: Will

Will — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:33:00 +0000

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

By: Dr X

Dr X — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:11:00 +0000

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.

By: Greg

Greg — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:39:00 +0000

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.