Weblog #1: Class Presentations

In deciding tough cases, I think it is most often the defense's ability to appeal to the jurors emotionally that influences their decisions. Such as in our group presentations, I was most affected by the stories that included a victim in which I could feel sorry for, empathize with, and therefore, allow myself to imagine myself in a similar situation. In the case Johnson vs. McDonald's, I was most influenced by the fact that kids were the ones that were suffering as a result of McDonald's actions. I think it would be hard to any juror to hear about the rapidly declining health of a child and not want to punish whomever is responsible. While the appeal to logos by including the statistics and factual information behind McDonald's food was also influential in this case, the appeal to pathos is what would essentially "tip the scale" in this decision because so many jurors would be able to relate emotionally to a child or loved one being affected by being unaware of the harmful nutritional value of McDonald's food. In the case on affirmative action, I was most likely to side with being for affirmative action after hearing about the struggles and inability of the young Black girl to achieve success without affirmative action. I honestly felt sorry for her because she was successful in school, but because of prejudice, would never be able to succeed in college or the workplace. If affirmative action would give everyone equal opportunity, then I would be all for it. Whereas the numbers and percentages used in this case were effective in demonstrating the unequal distribution of races in college campuses, it was in fact the personal account of an individual that was most influential for me. It allowed the listener to empathize with the individual who is hindered by their race. Lastly, in Smith vs. Valley Insurance, the most influential part of this case was the emotional appeal to the jurors by detailing the preventable death of a minor. Specifically, I think the pictures were most effective in making the viewers see the mother as the one to blame for the child's death.

In all of these cases, there were both rational and emotional means taken to influence the decision. However, it is most often the emotional appeals that impact a court's decision. In "When Law Goes Pop", Sherwin reveals that attorneys are ultimately telling a story when presenting their arguments and that those listening like neat stories with recognizable characters. Not only do emotional appeals provide a "neat" story that details the victimization of a character, but these appeals also make the jurors empathize with the party involved, ultimately giving them recognizable characters they are able to relate to. In this book, however, Sherwin is questioning the impact that media and popular culture have on a system that so heavily relies on the presentation of a "story". Such as in Smith vs. Vally Insurance, the pictures of the victim and his mother were what were so influential. However, what if these images were not entirely factual given the circumstances. An entire case would be based on images that do in fact grasp the audience, but do so on the wrong basis. Ultimately, the dependency we have on emotional appeals and popular culture could have detrimental effects on our judicial system if we take advantage of it.