🚀 go-pugleaf

I wrote:
>Bravo to Canada for this treatment of a jury.  But both US and Canadian
>systems treat jurors without respect for their intelligence.  It is
>folly to expect an intelligent verdict while insisting that a juror
>cannot be trusted to follow instructions.  The court instructs the juror
>to decide based only on the evidence at trial.  But if a juror cannot
>follow that instruction, how can he return an intelligent verdict?
>If I were on trial, I would like the most informed jury available.

michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) responded:
>Why then does the US sequester its juries?
>Indeed, but what you *wouldn't* want was a jury having heard from your
>ex-wife all the terrible things you allegedly did.

Beats me why we do these dumb things. Strikes me as false imprisonment.
I suppose that some folks find it easier to sequester a jury than to
find an intelligent one.

Even supposing that my ex would say terrible things, I would trust an
honest and intelligent juror to "consider the source".  A juror who
is ignorant of current events is not likely, IMHO, to be able to
make an intelligent decision.  Because, such ignorance is symptomatic
of intellectual laziness.  I'd rather have a juror with the habit of
critical thinking than one who takes his opinions from a sitcom writer.

--
Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA  "Always" and "never" are two words you
compata@shell.portal.com	     should always remember never to use.
dave@compata.attmail.com		  Wendell Johnson