

The Sneakiest Way Prosecutors Get a Guilty Verdict: PowerPoint - CapitalistCartr
http://www.wired.com/2014/12/prosecutors-powerpoint-presentations/

======
noblethrasher
PowerPoint is all too often used to commit the fallacy of _argument via
misleading vividness_.

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_vividness](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_vividness)

~~~
humanrebar
Don't the opening and closing arguments already commit this fallacy?

"I'm going to show that the defendant, Mr. Kool-Aid Man, intentionally and
recklessly burst through the wall, terrifying the crowd and causing little
Tiny Tim to wet his underpants. I'll then show that he proceeded to ... etc."

...why is this just now crossing the line?

~~~
HillRat
Inflammatory rhetoric during jury argument is already grounds for objection
and, in certain cases, appeal even if not objected to. While the courts are
obviously having to catch up to the use of new technology -- judges have
traditionally not aggressively policed openings and closings like other parts
of the trial -- the rules already exist to deal with these issues.

 _Contra_ your argument, I do think that the use of emotionally-targeted
visual presentations are injurious to the health of a justice system that is
at least ostensibly based in law and fact. While the jury system is far from
perfect, it's absurd to let it descend to mockery. An inflammatory visual
presentation is more memorable and emotionally-impactful than even the most
impassioned speech, and it's dangerous to allow attorneys to have too-free a
rein in manipulating jurors right before they head into deliberation.

------
humanrebar
If we think (EDIT: or know) jurors are dumb enough to be swayed by
superimposing the word "GUILTY" over a mugshot, what's the point of jury
trials?

All of this sound and fury about PowerPoint seems like a bunch of melodrama.
We live in a visual age. Normal people do not routinely attend live theater or
listen to lectures anymore.

On the other hand, if you're reading it, it's for you. Maybe the point of the
article was to get me to be irked about arbitrary courtroom rules. If so,
mission accomplished.

EDIT: I added an edit above, clearly marked, to allow you to respond on the
interesting points (why jury trials? when are images unfair?) and ignore
topics that are less interesting to me, such as "how much is everyone else a
mindless sheep?"

~~~
bunderbunder
> If we think jurors are dumb enough to be swayed by superimposing the word
> "GUILTY" over a mugshot

It's not a matter of simply thinking this might be an issue; we know it's an
issue. And it's not a matter of being smart or dumb. It's just basic human
psychology of the type that you'd likely learn in any introductory course
nowadays. There's even a $500bn global industry (advertising) largely built
around exploiting these same psychological heuristics.

And yes, you're right, that does raise some questions about the validity of
the jury trial system. One could quite readily argue (and many do) that a lot
of what we've learned about human psychology over the past few decades raises
similarly disturbing questions about a great many other aspects of the way we
handle criminal justice.

~~~
humanrebar
> There's even a $500bn global industry (advertising) largely built around
> exploiting these same psychological heuristics.

First, advertising is largely a mass market phenomenon. Spammers only need a
small fraction of recipients to click through and give their credit card info.

Second, point one aside, isn't advertising undermined by all the churn in the
advertising world over the last decade or so? I was under the impression that
the question is actively being reevaluated. Perhaps advertising is great at
branding (remember us!?) and information (we do this!) but poor at changing
minds (now you're buying Androids and not iPhones!).

Third, I still don't see what makes these particular examples egregious. If
the judge were displaying these images, there would be a problem, but
prosecutors aren't supposed to be impartial. And the defense could similarly
show photos of the defendant kissing babies, right? Don't both sides do the
equivalent in oral arguments already? Why is photo-shopping crossing the line?

------
at-fates-hands
It would be interesting to note both sides engage in some underhanded tricks
to win their case. This is not a one sided argument - even though this article
would make you believe otherwise.

All you have to do is look at the John Gotti cases or the OJ Simpson case to
see some pretty questionable defense tactics.

~~~
fsk
Those two cases are not typical. Not every defendant has millions to spend on
lawyers.

