> Technical cases like this will always confuse jurors... On the other hand, in a number of highprofile tech cases, you can see judges learning and discussing engineering in a deeper level.

Not to be ageist, but I find this highly counterintuitive.

▲

pc86 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Judges aren't necessarily brilliant, but they do spend their entire careers reading, listening to, and dissecting arguments. A large part of this requires learning new information at least well enough to make sense of arguments on both sides of the issue. So you do end up probably self-selecting for older folks able to do this better than the mean for their age, and likely for the population at large.

Let's just say with a full jury you're almost guaranteed to get someone on the other side of the spectrum, regardless of age.

▲

willsmith72 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

how exactly? you expect the average joe to have a better technical understanding, and more importantly ability to learn, than a judge? that is bizarre to me

	▲	zahlman 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I expect the average joe to use technology much more than a judge.

▲

BobaFloutist 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The judge is at their job. The jury is conscripts that are often paying a financial penalty to be present.

▲

mulmen 2 days ago | parent [-]

Weird deference to authority

▲

BobaFloutist 19 hours ago | parent [-]

What? No, I think jury trials are very, very important, for all their flaws, but I don't think it demonstrates deference to authority to say that it makes sense that your average judge is likely to be more invested in your average trial than your average jury, for the same reason that volunteer militaries tend to have more dedicated soldiers than conscript militaries.

The judge decided to pursue this career, studied law, is fairly well paid for the position, and has nowhere better to be. The jury is likely losing pay, is worried about parking and where and when they're going to eat lunch, and probably just wants the trial to be over (for all that they would of course prefer the outcome to be correct) so they can go home and return to their normal lives.

	▲	mulmen 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I don't think it demonstrates deference to authority to say that it makes sense that your average judge is likely to be more invested in your average trial than your average jury First off averages aren’t good enough here. Second I can’t imagine a better example of an appeal to authority. Trials are an administrative action. Interest in the process is no indication that the outcome will be just. Your idea falls apart for all of the reasons an appeal to authority is a fallacy. Additionally you’re fundamentally changing the nature of society by holding the people accountable to power rather than each other.