Do You Realize the Gift You Have?

[Newman]

Originally Posted by Subdued

My posts on this forum seldom (if ever) reflect my opinion(s). However, I'm quite open when I write letters and/or emails and will not hesitate to express my thoughts, opinions or feelings. Does this make me a leader or a follower in your opinion?

Well, I think it would make for interesting public reading if you shared more thoughts. However, given that you don't, I would guess that you are a "participant."

1. Persuaders (generally 25% of a jury)
These 4 or 5 people sitting on a 12 man jury make over 50% of the statements during deliberations.

2. Participants (generally 50% of the jury)
In contrast to persuaders who often offer facts; participants are more likely to offer opinions. Partipants generally don't build coalitions themselves but actively support the leadership of persuaders.

3. Non-participants (remaining 25%)
Generally say very little. They will follow the majority inclination.

[Subdued]

Originally Posted by Newman

Well, I think it would make for interesting public reading if you shared more thoughts. However, given that you don't, I would guess that you are a "participant."

Well, thanks; but I think I'll stick to reading/observing.

Originally Posted by Newman

1. Persuaders (generally 25% of a jury)
These 4 or 5 people sitting on a 12 man jury make over 50% of the statements during deliberations.

2. Participants (generally 50% of the jury)
In contrast to persuaders who often offer facts; participants are more likely to offer opinions. Partipants generally don't build coalitions themselves but actively support the leadership of persuaders.

3. Non-participants (remaining 25%)
Generally say very little. They will follow the majority inclination.

Yep - I'd say that I'm a "participant" as well. Guess that means I'm average.

[Margies3]

Really interesting!! I've served on two juries so far. One as an alternate. Which was a good thing, because I'm sure I could not have been non-biased. I don't even know why they let me stay on as an alternate, for heaven's sake! The trial was for a 19 year old girl whose boyfriend had beat her up repeatedly. One day he beat her up, then went to work. She got ahold of a shotgun and went to his work and blew him away. She was tried for murder because she didn't do it WHILE he was beating her, but waited until later. My personal opinion? Give the girl a gun and let her go after the rest of the cowards in this world who beat up on women. And I told that to the court when they interviewed. But they still left me on. They must have been desperate is all I can figure. But I didn't get to vote anyway. And she was convicted. Too bad I didn't get to vote.

And writing letters to newspapers - oh ya, I've done more than my fair share of that.

And of course, posting on here..

I don't know if that makes me a leader. Maybe just a loud-mouth-know-it-all??

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Newman

Most of you don't realize it but the fact that you post (not lurk) means that you probably have natural leadership tendencies.

Having had to select juries; I know this. Attorneys look for a jury to be made up of people that would most likely be sympathetic to their position. But we only have a limited number of preemptive strikes; so they must be used judiciously.

Consequently, we look for the leaders on the other side to strike hoping that the leader on our side will survive. We don't want to waste our strike on a follower if we can get rid of a leader instead.

Clues to potential leadership in the jury room outside of obvious occupations?

1. Served on a jury before. The jury instinctively turns to them.
2. Writes letters to the newspaper and/or posts on forums. Obviously feels like they have an opinion that is worth listening to.

So this week; I struck two men in their 50s/60s from the jury without explanation. I wondered if they thought I was prejudice against them because of their age; not realizing that I was prejudice against them because of their potential.

So I guess; I am wondering what else are you doing with your influence and potential ability to lead besides posting on a forum?

We know what we are, but not what we may be. -William Shakespeare

In other words opinionated people make better leaders and jurists?

[rgcraig]

Researchers Conclude When It Comes to Looks, Justice Isn't Blind
Thursday , March 22, 2007

When it comes to crime, it pays to be good looking.

Researchers at Bath Spa University in England came to that conclusion after conducting a courtroom experiment that asked jurors to pass judgment on a fake mugging case.

Half of the 96 participants were given a picture of an attractive suspect, the others received one of a supposedly ugly defendant. The case report was the same in either case.

The volunteer "jurors" then were asked to decide whether the suspect was innocent or guilty. In the latter case they also had to decide on a sentence.

Analysis of the results revealed that attractive suspects were more likely to be acquitted, despite there being no extra evidence in their favor.

Sandie Taylor, the psychologist who conducted the study, said: "We set out to consider the influence of physical attractiveness and ethnicity of a defendant depicted in a photograph on mock jurors' decisions of verdict, extent of guilt and sentencing.

"Our findings confirm previous research on the effects of defendant characteristics -- such as physical attractiveness -- on the deliberations of jurors.

"Attractive defendants are, it seems, rated less harshly than homely defendants, so perhaps justice isn't blind after all."

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Researchers Conclude When It Comes to Looks, Justice Isn't Blind
Thursday , March 22, 2007

When it comes to crime, it pays to be good looking.

Researchers at Bath Spa University in England came to that conclusion after conducting a courtroom experiment that asked jurors to pass judgment on a fake mugging case.

Half of the 96 participants were given a picture of an attractive suspect, the others received one of a supposedly ugly defendant. The case report was the same in either case.

The volunteer "jurors" then were asked to decide whether the suspect was innocent or guilty. In the latter case they also had to decide on a sentence.

Analysis of the results revealed that attractive suspects were more likely to be acquitted, despite there being no extra evidence in their favor.

Sandie Taylor, the psychologist who conducted the study, said: "We set out to consider the influence of physical attractiveness and ethnicity of a defendant depicted in a photograph on mock jurors' decisions of verdict, extent of guilt and sentencing.

"Our findings confirm previous research on the effects of defendant characteristics -- such as physical attractiveness -- on the deliberations of jurors.

"Attractive defendants are, it seems, rated less harshly than homely defendants, so perhaps justice isn't blind after all."

Wow...I guess that means I could get away with murder

[Felicity]

The question posed by Newman
arrowed it's way
directly to my heart
challenging and demanding thought
as to how to answer.

[Felicity]

I would NOT want to serve on a jury.

[Scott Hutchinson]

I have served on a jury ,but being a strong leader I don't know about.
As I have no desire to be controlling ,of course I have to lead my family ,but I could care less about controlling people.
Someday maybe I'll pastor a church but it hasn't happened yet.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Felicity

The question posed by Newman
arrowed it's way
directly to my heart
challenging and demanding thought
as to how to answer.

Say What?