[cuban leaf]

” No other family should be forced to endure what the Martin family has endured,”

This logic happens in a lot of cases....no reliance on facts, just concern for emotional issues.

---

This is why I cringe at woman judges and woman juries. Emotional thinking is quite a valuable asset, but it has its weaknesses. Decision making in a court of law is one of them. You need people, cough *males* cough, who can “compartmentalize like Bill Clinton” and focus on the specific task. The job of the jury is not to determine the emotional impact of their decisions. Rather, it is to determine if the guy being accused can be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Period. Anything else is what we call “scope creep”.

Women are natural multitaskers and want to bring all sorts of irrelevent information to bear. It is important to be able to identify the irrelevant info and separate the chaff from the wheat. Men naturally do that better, though this has its own weaknesses that are to be held for other relevant threads.

[Texan5]

Apparently, that juror is suffering from a sudden and virulent onset of liberal guilt-gender is likely not a factor in her kneejerk reaction.

As a gender, we do not all rely on emotional issues first-most of my friends are men, I work with men, my thinking is more masculine in some respects than many women, and I am self-sufficient by choice. The emotional female label is a bad fit for me, as well as many, many others...