Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 14:31 UTC
Legal Lots of news about Apple vs. Samsung (and vice versa) in both the US and Europe today. In the US, judge Koh dealth two blows: one to Samsung (no retrial based on juror misconduct), the other to Apple (no permanent sales ban). In Europe, in the meantime, Samsung announced it will cease all lawsuits injunction requests against Apple... But only in Europe.
Permalink for comment 545844
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Jury qualifications?
by saso on Wed 19th Dec 2012 08:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Jury qualifications?"
Member since:

The assumption that the public are all idiots has led us to such fantastic decisions as:

It is no assumption that the average person is highly susceptible to a myriad of cognitive biases, especially in high-stakes cases. Attorneys in common law systems are educated how to exploit these biases, there are practices for favorable jury selection based on case, etc.

1. Speed cameras.
2. Many thousands of health warnings on everything.
3. Bans/limits on alcohol, tobacco.

You are espousing a trivial libertarian ideological standpoint, that given freedom, people would know what's best for them - essentially a form of radical libertarianism. That is factually just plain not true. Besides example 2 (which I'm not sure about), both 1 (traffic regulations in general) and 3 (regulation of hazardous substances) have, as a matter of fact, reduced deaths among the general populace from these risks.

This has now been replaced with an arrogant, cynical view that people are simple minded idiots who need hand-holding.

Again, an extreme libertarian viewpoint. What you fail to appreciate is that humans are a social species and thus we form superorganisms called "societies". These are more than the simple sum of the capabilities of their members, and thus work naturally to protect themselves from harmful influences. This needs to be balanced with individual concerns, or the society devolves into a tyranny.

It's a pretty short hop from the view that people are too stupid to be on a jury, to thinking that they are too stupid to vote.

Perhaps saying that some people are too stupid to vote isn't that crazy after all. Look at the 2008 presidential election in the US - how on Earth was it possible that somebody as vapid as Sarah Palin stood a real chance of being elected to the second highest office in America? Or 2012 and Romney's comments that he believes in an apocalyptic return of Jesus to the Mount of Olives. A doomsday loonie stood a very real chance of being elected president in a country with the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons on Earth. When you have somebody like that in office (elected by popular vote, mind you!), is this: [ ] really such a remote scenario?

Reply Parent Score: 2