Or does it make mistakes at times even serious ones on occasion, which means we can trust it for the most part, but not 100% and sometimes we have to rely on our own common sense rather than on it at all times just like that. Right?
So its not overall "the ultimate truth in the last resort", yes?
> we can trust it for the most part, but not 100% and sometimes we have to rely on our own common sense
Of course. In fact, I'd go much further. A person should always rely upon his or her own judgment, and if he finds it disagrees with public opinion, should only at most check his own reasoning against the most rational and informed arguments offered to justify the majority opinion, with a fair and open mind and the honest willingness to change his conclusions if he finds those arguments convincing.
Sadly, our species has too many creatures who are terrified of seeing with their own eyes and thinking with their own brains. There's something profoundly immoral about abandoning ones own judgment.
We should think for ourselves because many people are plain stupid or mean
shareFor example, has anyone in here seen David Fincher's 2014 film "Gone Girl"? In it, it was said that it was the "court of public opinion" that helped Amy Dunn (spelling?) to evade the police and legal authorities and not have her suspected of any wrongdoings including murder, and that it was that court that "helped" her to get back with Ben Affleck's character at the end.
In the above aforementioned scenario, was it correct, even if it maybe wasn't, but was it thinking logically?
I think even fairly smart people are wrong often enough that it's best to not rush to judgement
That was a fun, silly movie btw👍
The court of public opinion is based on emotions and perception. So rarely correct.
shareWell, it was wrong in the aforementioned scenario above. I wonder if maybe that was the kind of statement that David Fincher was trying to deliver in that movie.
shareThere are no absolutes and in some cases "public opinion" counts for example an election.
In the case of the scenario you mentioned, I would say public opinion was about having sympathy for the woman and wanting to make her a hero of sorts. We saw the same with #metoo. Some of the women no doubt had genuine claims but how many traded sex for roles or were even just making their stories up?
Emotion and Politics over riding logic.
It may not make much sense but I will ask this anyway...
Who "invented", if at all, the phrase "court of public opinion" and when and why? Why does such a term exist and is especially popular in America, Europe etc, basically, in English-language speaking nations, albeit not exclusively?
What would be a synonym or another term for "court of public opinion", or is it only laden with one "name" as such?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_public_opinion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alger_Hiss
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_media
I guess I have always seen the term as a euphemism for trial by media and also public opinion in general. We see it all the time, you can have two crimes of a similar type, one is a big deal while the other goes unnoticed. Usually because the victim in one crime has some kind of emotional (ie PC) attribute and the other doesn't.
It is usually about what cause is trendy at the time.
The court of public opinion is based on emotions and perception. So rarely correct.
i think people are wrong about lots and lots of things.
personally, i would also argue against using your own common sense. as richard feynman said, 'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.' i think we all tend to overvalue our own ability to detect bullshit, to sort wheat from chaff.
economics is a particular interest of mine - i am no expert, but i've studied it and read quite a few books - and i think that's an area where people have intuitions, things they think just have to be true, when in fact the opposite of the intuitive response is correct.
daniel kahneman's book thinking fast and slow has many good examples of popular, ingrained beliefs & reactions that aren't correct. one that always comes back to me is that, when asked how much they'll pay for life insurance, people are willing to pay more for insurance for death from a terrorist incident than insurance for death from any cause. which is just...well, it doesn't make a lot of sense.
people are not computers, and until robots rise up and take over, the world will be run by people & they will make lots and lots of mistakes.
Absolutely not ! A lot of people believing something doesn't make it true/fact. Religious dogma or flat earthers for example.
shareThe court of public opinion is 90% wrong in the vast majority of cases, especially when it comes to legal matters. It's no coincidence that many cases (for sexual assault) either get thrown out or the perpetrator is sentenced to a far lesser duration than what the court of PO thinks they deserve, especially when a sensational story is picked up by the media . The reason for this is simple: Cops and lawyers' jobs are to find the facts. Hence, they usually tend to have more info then the media is willing to present, which gives them a more informed judgment on what really occurred. The medias goal is to get views or clicks, not present facts in an impartial manner. The best way to do that is to appeal to the consumer's values, in this case their sense of justice which stems more so from emotion rather than logic. The more slanted they're able to make their stories in favor of the victim, the more these values become triggered in the consumer, provoking intense emotion from that, which will override their logic in many cases. As a result, most of these so called crusades are provoked by media sensationalism which is meant to keep people in a loop, wanting more and more; thus, leading to more clicks and views as subsequent coverage of the event continues
shareSometimes it works the other way. I know of one case involving one of the leading lights of a nearby town. Church deacon, civic leader, the whole bit -- such a fine man! Now, anyone who's ever lived in a small town knows that if your tastes in entertainment run to things that wouldn't pass muster on The Andy Griffith Show, you'd be well advised to go some distance away when pursuing such entertainment. This dude had been making frequent trips to a city, about 200 miles away, where he'd perv to his heart's content.
One weekend he was arrested, and later he was indicted on several felonies, varieties of sexual assault. The case was eventually dropped, nolle prosequi. That only meant that the prosecutors recognized that although they could prove a great deal, they couldn't prove his guilt to the exclusion of *all* reasonable doubt, and so it would be a waste of the taxpayer's money to try.
But his fellow townsfolk didn't see it that way. They proclaimed that he'd been *exonerated* and that a gross miscarriage of justice had been averted. At least publicly. In private, they acknowledged what had already been known long before, that the man had some emotional problems and sexual issues, he had a history of violence, and the excuses he had felt compelled to offer for his trips out of town lacked credibility.
A different situation than what you're talking about, I know. No intensive press coverage here. Sometimes the court of public opinion is driven by community pressure to protect the "right" people.
At the time I dug up these statistics from the Bureau of Justice, for rape defendants in the 75 largest counties in the USA. This data's about ten years old but probably still accurate. Anyway, you might find it of interest. Among those defendants:
68% are convicted.
---- 57% of felonies
-------- 50% by plea
-------- 7% by trial
---- 11% of misdemeanors
-------- 10% by plea
-------- 1% by trial
27% not convicted
---- 24% dismissed
---- 3% acquitted
5% other outcome
Also despite or because any of this, you don't necessarily think that sex offenders as such should simply be killed off like in any of the "I Spit on Your Grave" movies, out of vengeance or loss of hope etc?
sharePublic opinion is a toilet paper commercial. The majority of people are wrong the majority of the time. Try opening up a history book sometime and seeing that for yourself
shareNo. The existence of Twitter Mobs has conclusively proven how unreliable it is.
However, it must ALWAYS be taken into account. Even if you're not a public figure.