Sep 28th 2011, 4:44:04
No, of course not. Only that because someone has been taught how to buy a powerball ticket doesn't automatically mean that they will.
This is where I have a great respect for folks in the judicial system. You are probably correct that the probability of an emotional response in lieu of an objective response is 50/50 for the most part with some variation depending on mental capacity and training - but in the legal field, they have to suppress that initial response and use practical and objective pre-prescribed methodologies to obtain justice. Does it happen every single time? Of course not. No system is flawless, or immune from human error. But then again, as you said the same holds true in mathematics.
Take OJ, for example. Throughout the trial, the public sentiment was to hang him from his toes from the highest scaffold until he bled from his ears. Testimony was emotionally charged, racial lines were crossed, and the media tossed accusations around like a football at a tailgate party.
Even with all this though, the prosecution and defense maintained a high level of professionalism, and worked within the system to obtain a legitimate verdict - even if it wasn't the one that the public wanted to see, or even the one that many folks considered to be the "right" verdict. The point is, despite strong emotion from the public and media, the system remained objective, and handed out the only legitimate verdict it was able to given the evidence presented in the case.
Another example would be Casey Anthony in FL recently. The circumstantial evidence was absolutely overwhelming. Any subjective person would have punched her in the chops for what she did to her little girl. But the justice system looked at the facts objectively and said that despite the circumstantial evidence being what it was, there was not enough physical evidence to link her to the crime, and she therefore could not be convicted. To this day, she is still living in semi-protective custody because the general public cannot maintain the same level of objectivity that the legal system did.
This is where I have a great respect for folks in the judicial system. You are probably correct that the probability of an emotional response in lieu of an objective response is 50/50 for the most part with some variation depending on mental capacity and training - but in the legal field, they have to suppress that initial response and use practical and objective pre-prescribed methodologies to obtain justice. Does it happen every single time? Of course not. No system is flawless, or immune from human error. But then again, as you said the same holds true in mathematics.
Take OJ, for example. Throughout the trial, the public sentiment was to hang him from his toes from the highest scaffold until he bled from his ears. Testimony was emotionally charged, racial lines were crossed, and the media tossed accusations around like a football at a tailgate party.
Even with all this though, the prosecution and defense maintained a high level of professionalism, and worked within the system to obtain a legitimate verdict - even if it wasn't the one that the public wanted to see, or even the one that many folks considered to be the "right" verdict. The point is, despite strong emotion from the public and media, the system remained objective, and handed out the only legitimate verdict it was able to given the evidence presented in the case.
Another example would be Casey Anthony in FL recently. The circumstantial evidence was absolutely overwhelming. Any subjective person would have punched her in the chops for what she did to her little girl. But the justice system looked at the facts objectively and said that despite the circumstantial evidence being what it was, there was not enough physical evidence to link her to the crime, and she therefore could not be convicted. To this day, she is still living in semi-protective custody because the general public cannot maintain the same level of objectivity that the legal system did.
