> The system of trial-by-peers is flawed with a measurable error rate.
I've been listening to the podcast Court Junkie (not to be confused with "Crime Junkie"; long story...), and this was my main takeaway as well.
The podcast is great because it is almost entirely audio excerpts from actual murder trials, with some extra narration to tie it together. It made me realize my understanding of trial-by-jury was formulated almost entirely by television and other storytelling, and not be reality.
What amazed me the most is how the winner seems to be biased toward whichever side can present the most compelling story. Not the most realistic story or most likely story, just the most interesting one.
I worked as a trial consultant for a while and got to sit in trial. This is what struck me the most. The best trial lawyers I know are like actors, entertainers, celebrities -- they have the ability to publicly act towards witnesses and juries to evoke friendly, sad, likeable, dis-likeable, happy, angry emotions in a jury.
The money doesn't come from legal analysis at all; frankly many were not very bright on legal issues -- that's what second-chairs and legal experts are for. They all, without exception, were fantastically entertaining, funny, weird, charismatic people.
It's an important takeaway for life in general. The money follows people who are good at emotions.
I've been listening to the podcast Court Junkie (not to be confused with "Crime Junkie"; long story...), and this was my main takeaway as well.
The podcast is great because it is almost entirely audio excerpts from actual murder trials, with some extra narration to tie it together. It made me realize my understanding of trial-by-jury was formulated almost entirely by television and other storytelling, and not be reality.
What amazed me the most is how the winner seems to be biased toward whichever side can present the most compelling story. Not the most realistic story or most likely story, just the most interesting one.