Jury Duty Simulator

[Welf]

Here a page that simulates if you would get into jury duty for a specific case. As European that is something I will never do, but was interesting.

Link

I wouldn't have gotten on this case, since my results indicate a strong bias for the defendant and the plaintiff would have vetoed against me. I can't disagree with that, since my demographics indicate that. But personally I am biased against the financial industry, so the plaintiff would have wanted me on the jury. (Biased in the sense of: I am in a similar field and know what these fuckers do without feeling tribal affiliations to cloud my judgement.)

[Purple]

The results of that could not be further from the truth. I answered everything truthfully and it said I would be biased toward the cheat who gambled away someone elses money. I think the thing must be written from an americanized perspective which at least as far as I see it is completely missing the point of the case. Seriously, stuff like the crossword puzzle question are just plain WTH to me. The woman gave this man her money, he lost it, he is guilty. The details of their contract are inconsequential.

[Mr Bean]

The results of that could not be further from the truth. I answered everything truthfully and it said I would be biased toward the cheat who gambled away someone elses money. I think the thing must be written from an americanized perspective which at least as far as I see it is completely missing the point of the case. Seriously, stuff like the crossword puzzle question are just plain WTH to me. The woman gave this man her money, he lost it, he is guilty. The details of their contract are inconsequential.

I got the same, the defense would love me despite the fact that on initial read I say personally I'm more biased towards the prosecution.

One thing I did not notice but the fact when denied reading material, phone or other distractions I instantly start talking to people doubles my effectiveness towards both sides which I guess make sense from a social standpoint. If one of the lawyers is convinced I'm going to side with them, then having someone who can convince others would make me more valuable.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Yeah I got struck off too, despite being honest. Apparently just because my ad works int he financia industry i'm more likely to side with the defendant, same with earning less than 50K and being under thirty. What kind of fucked up system is this?

[Spekio]

The woman gave this man her money, he lost it, he is guilty. The details of their contract are inconsequential.

WRONG!!!!

There is such a thing as a obligation of means and obligation of results.

Let's say someone went to a doctor with a disease that had 50% chance of survival with a risky operation and, despite the doctor doing everything to standards, that person still died, do you think that person's family deserved compensation?

Lawyers also can lose a case despite doing their best.

So, in this case, the details of the contract are important. Did the defendant guaranteed financial return? Was the investment reasonable? Was the plaintiff in full mental capacities, or was he started going senile? Was the plaintiff familiar with financial investments or was this his first and was taken advantage of?

There are many factors you aren't taking in account when assuming the defendant is a cheat, so you are a bad choice for a juror since you are being swayed by emotion.

EDIT: To be completely honest, juries in general are a bad idea.

[LaCroix]

I would be on, and it said I'd be mostly siding with the defendant, which might be true, depending on the facts.

If a person claiming to be an expert loses all or most of the investment, he's obviously been either lying about his qualification or just recklessly gambling with her money - I'd side with the old lady.
If he just lost a small to medium part of her investment (doubt it - 200k seems a huge sum for an old lady to have, but they don't say how much he was given initially), then he had been sensible and pulled out in order to avoid a total loss, and I'd side with him.

[Purple]

There is such a thing as a obligation of means and obligation of results.

That is a very strange way to look at things that favors people who write contracts and ensures that you can sign away your soul by not reading a disclaimer.

Let's say someone went to a doctor with a disease that had 50% chance of survival with a risky operation and, despite the doctor doing everything to standards, that person still died, do you think that person's family still deserved compensation?

They do not deserve the same amount of to have the doctor punished as if he had made a mistake. But if the hospital is a for-profit organization I think they should have the right to be compensated simply on principal.

Lawyers also can lose a case despite doing their best.

That's a peculiarity of the american, or rather the adversarial system that we in Europe don't share to such a large degree.

There are many factors you aren't taking in account when assuming the defendant is a cheat, so you are a bad choice for a juror since you are being swayed by emotion.

I just feel that investment is gambling and thus any person that offers to handle your gambling for you is basically offering to help you sit at a gambling table and throw your dice. He is representing him self as an expert in dice throwing. And as such he has a professional responsibility to win the game for you. And thus he should be held responsible if you lose.

[Spekio]

That is a very strange way to look at things that favors people who write contracts and ensures that you can sign away your soul by not reading a disclaimer.

I say this from the perspective of a lawyer from a nation that does not abide by the absolute pacta sunt servanda as the U.S. system does.

They do not deserve the same amount of to have the doctor punished as if he had made a mistake. But if the hospital is a for-profit organization I think they should have the right to be compensated simply on principal.

I find it incredible that someone could think civil responsabilities could work like that.

Is this true where you live? Insurance companies must make a killing.

That's a peculiarity of the american, or rather the adversarial system that we in Europe don't share to such a large degree.

Not from the U.S., still true here. Also, we are not a common law nation, and use the inquisitorial system.

I just feel that investment is gambling and thus any person that offers to handle your gambling for you is basically offering to help you sit at a gambling table and throw your dice. He is representing him self as an expert in dice throwing. And as such he has a professional responsibility to win the game for you. And thus he should be held responsible if you lose.

And that is why I think juries are a bad idea. Are you an expert? Does your "feeling" represent a) the general opinion of the country you live in or b) the lawmakers position?

[Purple]

I find it incredible that someone could think civil responsabilities could work like that.

They don't but should.

Is this true where you live? Insurance companies must make a killing.

No, but they bloody should.

And that is why I think juries are a bad idea. Are you an expert? Does your "feeling" represent a) the general opinion of the country you live in or b) the lawmakers position?

I'll answer those in order. No, how and why the hell should I know or care, how the hell should I know


Basically the way I see this case is as follows. The old lady decided to partake in a game of dice. The odds in her favor are 1/N. She approached a bunch of "experts", each of whom promised that hiring him or her would add +X to her roll. She picked one and rolled the dice. So from my perspective, there is a joined responsibility for the end results of this roll that no contract should allow you to weasel your way out of. And any law that states the contrary is unfair and heavily biased toward these "experts".

[LaCroix]

I just feel that investment is gambling and thus any person that offers to handle your gambling for you is basically offering to help you sit at a gambling table and throw your dice. He is representing him self as an expert in dice throwing. And as such he has a professional responsibility to win the game for you. And thus he should be held responsible if you lose.

And that's where you are wrong. Investment is more like Poker than rolling a dice. There is skill involved on top of luck.

But either way, if there is a portion of luck involved in the game, and people(other investors) are working against you, it means that an expert can only improve your odds at winning, but simply cannot guarantee a win. His professional responsibility is to do his best for you, not to win the game. If he fails in spite of doing his best, he's not responsible. Like a racing car driver - he can only do his best against the other drivers, with the car he has, and all kind of stuff happening on the track - would you say that each of them should pay back their wage if they did not win the race?

That's where the term "resonable person" comes into play - would a reasonable person of his profession (with no hindsight knowledge you now have at the time of trial) have done the same in his shoes? If yes, then he did the job to his best abilities, and is not responsible for a bad outcome due to uncontrollable circumstances.

[Purple]

And that's where you are wrong. Investment is more like Poker than rolling a dice. There is skill involved on top of luck.

But either way, if there is a portion of luck involved in the game, and people(other investors) are working against you, it means that an expert can only improve your odds at winning, but simply cannot guarantee a win. His professional responsibility is to do his best for you, not to win the game. If he fails in spite of doing his best, he's not responsible. Like a racing car driver - he can only do his best against the other drivers, with the car he has, and all kind of stuff happening on the track - would you say that each of them should pay back their wage if they did not win the race?

That's where the term "resonable person" comes into play - would a reasonable person of his profession (with no hindsight knowledge you now have at the time of trial) have done the same in his shoes? If yes, then he did the job to his best abilities, and is not responsible for a bad outcome due to uncontrollable circumstances.

He is not supposed to guarantee a win. I just feel that if he desires to have any standing to gain from the win he should also have to lose from the loss. And that any system that separates the two is repugnant.

[Eternal_Freedom]

He is not supposed to guarantee a win. I just feel that if he desires to have any standing to gain from the win he should also have to lose from the loss. And that any system that separates the two is repugnant.

Not necessarily. If he loses because of circumstances he couldn't foresee or control, should we hold him accountable?

Remember what Picard told Data "It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose." If he lost because of a mistake he made, sure, he should suffer something for it. But if he makes no mistake and still loses, it isn't fair to punish him.

[Spekio]

snip

Q.E.D., juries are a bad idea.

I don't mean to offend, mind you, but your judgment is clouded by emotion.

[Spekio]

He is not supposed to guarantee a win. I just feel that if he desires to have any standing to gain from the win he should also have to lose from the loss. And that any system that separates the two is repugnant.

Not necessarily. If he loses because of circumstances he couldn't foresee or control, should we hold him accountable?

Remember what Picard told Data "It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose." If he lost because of a mistake he made, sure, he should suffer something for it. But if he makes no mistake and still loses, it isn't fair to punish him.

He just said he did think so.

[Coop D'etat]

I would be on, and it said I'd be mostly siding with the defendant, which might be true, depending on the facts.

If a person claiming to be an expert loses all or most of the investment, he's obviously been either lying about his qualification or just recklessly gambling with her money - I'd side with the old lady.
If he just lost a small to medium part of her investment (doubt it - 200k seems a huge sum for an old lady to have, but they don't say how much he was given initially), then he had been sensible and pulled out in order to avoid a total loss, and I'd side with him.

Third option, she was totally advised of the risks of a high-risk high rewards investment strategy but went ahead with it and is now trying to recoup her losses by suing the advisor.

Not to say that would be the case, but one should avoid making assumptions based off of incomplete information. What facts will be in evidence will be produced in trial and until then the proper course is to keep an open mind. This is exactly the mistake Purple made, assuming that the defendant was liable purely on the basis that money was lost.

Trying to find if you'd be prone to making that kind of a pre-judgment in one sides favour is something of the point of the entire exercise. Whether there has been a breach in contract or fiduciary duty sufficient to make the investor liable is going to be fact specific and this is not the point in the trial when you would have all the facts your supposed to consider.

[Starglider]

After two thirds of the questions I had already maxed out the bar at the 'defendent loves you' end. Although actually working in banking is probably an automatic exclusion.

Purple is being ludicrously unrealistic and impractical as usual, in and of itself grounds for being excluded from jury service.

[J]

After two thirds of the questions I had already maxed out the bar at the 'defendent loves you' end. Although actually working in banking is probably an automatic exclusion.

Yeah. Probably. Especially given my field of work in banking & finance.
They'd probably take one look at my job title and throw me out. Probably.

[Raw Shark]

Call your boss, you're on the jury. The defense lawyer wants you on the jury. The plaintiff lawyer is concerned about you, but is hoping for the best, and saving strikes to use on your more problematic peers. Welcome to the jury!

I find this semi-plausible, for this specific case. The Defense would fall in love with me if I got to say anything about the current state of frivolous lawsuits in this country, I tend to talk to people when detained but unoccupied (and have what is generally described as a "radio voice" along with training in public speaking), and most of my other results were neutral, with a few that balanced out. I'd probably get picked for this case, though I've never been picked in real life.

[Thunderfire]

I am off.

3x More likely to influence other jurors + slight bias for the defendant.

[Raw Shark]

With only one change, arguing strongly instead of weakly for being let off (which I arguably deserve, as I get no compensation at all for jury duty as an independent contractor in a society where everybody else is guaranteed their regular pay for it), I get a +1 in influence cred with the other jurors for acting like a boss with the judge without changing anything else, and am struck by the Prosecution for being too much of a threat. Interesting.

[White Haven]

Heh, normal pay, I wish. 30 dollars a day can get railed right up its flacid asshole, hence why I move the heavens to get out of jury duty whenever it rolls around.

[Ahriman238]

I got thrown off as too biased in favor of the defendant. Which is funny since despite a sincere desire to be fair and impartial, I feel like any right-thinking lawyer would eject me as too sympathetic to the plaintiff. Mostly it was having a relation in banking, being young (huh?) and agreeing there are too many frivolous lawsuits these days, which says nothing about the merits of this one case.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I think the being young part means we are less likely to sympathise with the elderly plaintiff. No doubt if the plaintiff were a younger person it would be the other way around.

[Darmalus]

Awww crap, I've got jury duty. Someone will hang for this!

I seem to lean slightly toward the defendant, which is funny considering my opinion about the influence the finance industry has on our society. Still, as presented this individual adviser could have done his best and still failed, so best to be impartial. The question that seems to make or break me is how chatty I would be with other jurors, since I'm not sure how chatty I would be in a room of random people in this situation.

[RogueIce]

Right now I'm one tick too far into the Defendant's camp to be selected. Wait about six months until my 30th birthday, however, and I'm smack in the middle for getting picked.