this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2025
720 points (98.8% liked)
Actually Infuriating
560 readers
1 users here now
Community Rules:
Be Civil
Please treat others with decency. No bigotry (disparaging comments about any race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, nationality, ability, age, etc). Personal attacks and bad-faith argumentation are not allowed.
Content should be actually infuriating
Politics and news are allowed, as well as everyday life. However, please consider posting in partner communities below if it is a better fit.
Mark NSFW/NSFL posts
Please mark anything distressing (death, gore, etc.) as NSFW and clearly label it in the title.
Keep it Legal and Moral
No promoting violence, DOXXing, brigading, harassment, misinformation, spam, etc.
Partner Communities
- Mildly Infuriating
- Furiously Infuriating
- Memes
- Political Memes
- Lemmy Shitpost
- Not The Onion
- You Should Know
- Lemmy Be Wholesome
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And that's a big problem with our system, in that if you happen to have the misfortune of being involved in a high profile case, you have to be judged by uninformed idiots.
Jury members are typically highly capable of reasoning and understanding as they are carefully chosen from a large pool of candidates. They tend to be highly educated professionals (for many reasons, not just because lawyers choose them) who just also happen to not closely follow news, politics, or be chronically online. They likely know about some guy killed a healthcare CEO a few months ago, but there knowledge of the situation is only surface level and not influenced by media biases. This makes them best able to form rational conclusions as a result of the trial.
Yeah, let’s jury select a bunch of hick ass yokels, who don’t read the news, who don’t know shit about anything, so we can convince them to vote the way we want.
Is that really a jury of your peers? No.