I had an interesting conversation recently with a judge, a plaintiff's lawyer, and some lawyers for the defense regarding the nature of skepticism and the import of being an avowed skeptic on ones ability to render an impartial decision in a civil court case. It took place in a courtroom here in Massachusetts. This of course was a voir dire of myself as a prospective juror in said civil case. Judges can dismiss potential jurors based on potential reasons for bias (e.g. if the person is an acquaintance of either party, an employee, has been the victim of a similar mishap, has read about the case in the news, etc.) and either side can also object to jurors with or without cause, including based on strategy, who they think will be sympathetic to their side. The case was a personal injury liability claim by a customer against a regional retail business. (Details are omitted to protect everything from everything else.)
I had happened to mention on the juror questionnaire that I had over 21,000 posts on a skeptics' forum online. I might not have been required to mention this, because I do not personally believe it has any adverse effect whatsoever on my ability to assess the evidence offered in a trial and render an impartial judgment (and that's what the question on the questionnaire asked). Quite the contrary, in fact. But I wasn't certain the parties involved would agree with that, and there was scary language on the questionnaire importuning the complete truth, and I'm no expert on jurisprudence, so I mentioned it anyway. And it appears that was the right thing to do, because all the parties present appeared to take great interest in it.
Some of the more interesting questions, and my answers: Did being a (presumably self-described) skeptic mean I would need "more" evidence to believe the plaintiff's case? Well, yes, that's practically the definition of skeptic. However, I carefully explained, that would apply to both sides equally, and also it's not really about the amount of evidence, but being careful to evaluate its quality, such as whether it might be based on appeals to emotion, logical fallacies, or bad statistics. Did my online activities mean I would research the case on the Internet? It means I would want to do that, as it's my normal habit when trying to figure something out, but I understand perfectly that it would be against the rules in this particular instance. Would I think more favorably of a witness who works in the same retail chain as my wife used to? I presume, having a very favorable impression of that group, that I would be a bit biased in their favor, because research clearly shows that everyone is biased in such ways, even when they claim otherwise or are unaware of it. It's important to acknowledge such biases and compensate for them as needed rather than offhandedly deny them. Do the topics of discussion on the skeptics' forum include court cases? Yes!
Amazingly, despite my eloquent case for my superlative qualifications as the most rational and impartial of jurors, and complete willingness to serve, I was dismissed from the panel. That decision takes place behind closed doors, so I don't know which party dismissed me on what basis. I have my suspicions, naturally.
Some cynics might read into the above that I actually didn't want to be on a jury at that time, which I acknowledge would have been a substantial but manageable inconvenience. But given that all my answers were completely truthful, without exaggeration or omission, what I wanted could hardly have figured into it.
Does anyone else have experiences where self representing as a skeptic, or behaving in a skeptical manner, has been an issue in jury service or other court proceedings?
I had happened to mention on the juror questionnaire that I had over 21,000 posts on a skeptics' forum online. I might not have been required to mention this, because I do not personally believe it has any adverse effect whatsoever on my ability to assess the evidence offered in a trial and render an impartial judgment (and that's what the question on the questionnaire asked). Quite the contrary, in fact. But I wasn't certain the parties involved would agree with that, and there was scary language on the questionnaire importuning the complete truth, and I'm no expert on jurisprudence, so I mentioned it anyway. And it appears that was the right thing to do, because all the parties present appeared to take great interest in it.
Some of the more interesting questions, and my answers: Did being a (presumably self-described) skeptic mean I would need "more" evidence to believe the plaintiff's case? Well, yes, that's practically the definition of skeptic. However, I carefully explained, that would apply to both sides equally, and also it's not really about the amount of evidence, but being careful to evaluate its quality, such as whether it might be based on appeals to emotion, logical fallacies, or bad statistics. Did my online activities mean I would research the case on the Internet? It means I would want to do that, as it's my normal habit when trying to figure something out, but I understand perfectly that it would be against the rules in this particular instance. Would I think more favorably of a witness who works in the same retail chain as my wife used to? I presume, having a very favorable impression of that group, that I would be a bit biased in their favor, because research clearly shows that everyone is biased in such ways, even when they claim otherwise or are unaware of it. It's important to acknowledge such biases and compensate for them as needed rather than offhandedly deny them. Do the topics of discussion on the skeptics' forum include court cases? Yes!
Amazingly, despite my eloquent case for my superlative qualifications as the most rational and impartial of jurors, and complete willingness to serve, I was dismissed from the panel. That decision takes place behind closed doors, so I don't know which party dismissed me on what basis. I have my suspicions, naturally.
Some cynics might read into the above that I actually didn't want to be on a jury at that time, which I acknowledge would have been a substantial but manageable inconvenience. But given that all my answers were completely truthful, without exaggeration or omission, what I wanted could hardly have figured into it.
Does anyone else have experiences where self representing as a skeptic, or behaving in a skeptical manner, has been an issue in jury service or other court proceedings?
