I get the reasoning behind that kind of jury selection, but yeah it seems this would also select for the most gullible people to be in the jury - especially if you want people without domain knowledge.

▲

ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's what both the defense and the prosecution are looking for.

The same will happen with expert witnesses; both bring in people willing to say virtually anything, for the right pay.

▲

xg15 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Ok, but at least expert witnesses are constrained by the basic state of science in the field: They can certainly have a biased opinion but they can't go against established knowledge - and the other party can also interrogate them and try to show holes in their argumentation.

Whereas for jury members, the only people who could do that are other jury members, who would be just as clueless.

(I get that you don't want a jury with wildly different levels of domain knowledge. e.g. if you had one "expert" and the remainder being laymen, the expert could quickly dominate the entire jury - and there would be no one there to call out any bias from them)

	▲	saghm 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Ok, but at least expert witnesses are constrained by the basic state of science in the field: They can certainly have a biased opinion but they can't go against established knowledge How can you tell if you're not also an expert? > the other party can also interrogate them and try to show holes in their argumentation Yes, and when the science is beyond the experience of the jury, experts giving opposite opinions will be as hard to distinguish as conflicting non-expert witness testimony (or even the testimony of the defendant compared to the accuser or litigant).
	▲	ceejayoz 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> at least expert witnesses are constrained by the basic state of science in the field This is absolutely not the case. > and the other party can also interrogate them and try to show holes in their argumentation Sure, and now the jury - with zero domain knowledge - sees two very confident sounding experts who disagree on a critical point... and you wind up with it coming down to which one was more likeable.
	▲	rbtbisrespected 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]

▲

xxs 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

case in point - rounder corners worth billion(s)