I read the article, and your response in no way answers the questions
I posed. If PIs did nothing but work for jury consultants, I'd
question their profession's contribution to the search for justice as
well. And to the extent that they DO work for jcs, as well as for the
OJ Simpsons and Michael Jacksons of this world, not to mention mob
lawyers and other such slime, I question their contribution to the
greater good as well.
So are you then saying that since PIs work for your sort, and since
this is in a sense their forum, no-one here is in a position to
question what you do, or to argue that your goals have little or
nothing to do with justice?
You are clearly ducking the larger questions involved here, and it's
either because you see no adequate way to answer them, or because what
you do causes you to wear the sort of blinders that prevent you from
examining these questions at all.
Perhaps I should present a hypothetical question that will reflect
some of the issues here in a way you (and the attorneys you work for)
can better relate to:
In a debating forum where lying is permitted under the rules, and the
participants are drawn from a pool of trained liars, how likely is it
that the best liar will win each debate? Does that likelihood then
increase in proportion to the gullibility of the panel members chosen
to hear and decide the winner?
And would you want such a system used in any situation where your
future wellfare depends on the outcome of such a debate?
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Jurydoctor@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 5/31/2005 5:59:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> email@example.com writes:
> Why jury consultants are increasingly important
> You are saying, are you not, that they won because the jury consultant
> manipulated the jury pool, and in effect stacked the jury. You are
> also arguing, are you not, that this is not a good thing, and the
> other side thus needs a jury consultant to stack the jury in their
> favor. So do the two stacking attempts then cancel themselves out?
> You refer to the "winning side," as if that is the goal here. I
> thought justice was supposed to be the goal. Or if you win, does that
> automatically mean you got justice? Or is perhaps HOW you win a
> factor in obtaining justice?
> Does the jury consultant on one side wear a black hat, so the jury
> consultant on the other side then has a duty to wear a white hat and
> straighten everything out? I hardly think the attorneys involved are
> using consultants to that end, and it would be disingenuous of you to
> imply otherwise.
> But of course I don't expect an answer to any of these questions
> because justice was never what jury consulting was about from the
> beginning, and thus it's not what you are about.
> Lex Silvia
> If you read the article you can see what they say about PI's and JC
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]