are now going to hear things they never heard before.
were remarkably inconsistent in their response to the alienists' diagnoses.
Jury trials fail not because of "louts, nincompoops, and media whores" on juries
, but because soi-disant "people smarter than themselves" such as judges, lawyers, and media types subvert the system.
Attorneys are now successfully arguing that, without knowledge of previous settlements, it is impossible for juries
and judges to fairly apportion liability to defendants.
have to a great degree eschewed formalism and chosen work that enhances human life and that of the planet.
these days include women, of course, but in other ways they are still something of a paradox.
They all hew to a standard line, starting with a juicy but misleading--or even fictitious--lawsuit horror story typically describing an irresponsible plaintiff, followed by "studies" on the economic damage of the tort system published by corporate front groups, finally ending with calls for "reforms" to rein in mushy-headed juries
and greedy trial lawyers.
want to hear a logical and meaningful story about what happened, and they also want to see it in their minds.
In Canada, juries
do not actually decide on the criminal sentence, but they can make recommendations on parole eligibility.
The historic and continuing reason for this separate standard in the selection of jurors is that the jury role isn't narrowly professional but broadly political; juries
are representatives of "the People" and therefore have been temporarily empowered to apply "community standards "to the case before them.
Industry representatives are still naturally apprehensive that juries
will be seeking someone to compensate the victim, regardless of whether the owner provided secure working locks on apartment building doors.
Plaintiffs are simply unable to persuade juries
of their claims because the facts and the science are just not there.