Law Professor To Students: If You Say 'I Feel' Rather Than 'I Think,' You Must Cluck Like A Chicken

[DrYouth]

I agree with that criticism personally, but while that's a fair view to have as both a public and private person, it should not form a basis for policing or punishing the expressed views of progressive views on judicially relevant topics of discussion during his lectures.

I'm not clear that he is setting out to punish progressive views.
My sense is that he wants to challenge the thinking of his students rather than have them recite platitudes.

This is a healthy approach for a teacher and probably far too rare.

As far as pleading emotion in the courtroom...
This will only work if you completely understand the value system of your audience... and craft your emotional appeals to their specific value system.

Simply assuming they share your value system will go wrong as often as not, unless you are practicing within an area that conforms neatly to your moral bubble.

[DBTrek]

Seriously? Ought I really to have put "even" in bold, added a after "three of them", and a winky-smiley after the last sentence followed by a rimshot sound effect for you to "pick up on" that my reply was also meant in a similar jokey fashion?

Those wooden clogs are making you cranky.
Has your town busted out it’s Sambo Santa figure yet? Christmas lights are already on the light poles here.

[Fife]

Seriously? Ought I really to have put "even" in bold, added a after "three of them", and a winky-smiley after the last sentence followed by a rimshot sound effect for you to "pick up on" that my reply was also meant in a similar jokey fashion?

Those wooden clogs are making you cranky.
Has your town busted out it’s Sambo Santa figure yet? Christmas lights are already on the light poles here.

It's not really Christmas-time up yonder until they break out the black-face and get Greenlander-Pissed a few nights in a row to get in the right mood.

:goteam: :drunk:

[Viktorthepirate]

I agree with that criticism personally, but while that's a fair view to have as both a public and private person, it should not form a basis for policing or punishing the expressed views of progressive views on judicially relevant topics of discussion during his lectures.

I'm not clear that he is setting out to punish progressive views.
My sense is that he wants to challenge the thinking of his students rather than have them recite platitudes.

This is a healthy approach for a teacher and probably far too rare.

As far as pleading emotion in the courtroom...
This will only work if you completely understand the value system of your audience... and craft your emotional appeals to their specific value system.

Simply assuming they share your value system will go wrong as often as not, unless you are practicing within an area that conforms neatly to your moral bubble.

Yea, I think everyone is jumping downstream to a jury trial.

A. Not all attorneys are going into criminal law.
B. I think he is just trying to train them think logically, not emotionally. Very little of an attorneys time is in a courtroom. When you are making strategy, reviewing documents etc... logical thinking is essential to what an attorney does. Feelings get in the way. As far as the law is concerned fair doesn't matter. It's all about using the law to benefit the client, and that requires logic and non-emotive thinking.

[DrYouth]

Yea, I think everyone is jumping downstream to a jury trial.

A. Not all attorneys are going into criminal law.
B. I think he is just trying to train them think logically, not emotionally. Very little of an attorneys time is in a courtroom. When you are making strategy, reviewing documents etc... logical thinking is essential to what an attorney does. Feelings get in the way. As far as the law is concerned fair doesn't matter. It's all about using the law to benefit the client, and that requires logic and non-emotive thinking.

+1

[Speaker to Animals]

Well, the emotion thing sure worked in San Francisco last Thursday. Seems to me they ought to teach it.

[Viktorthepirate]

Well, the emotion thing sure worked in San Francisco last Thursday. Seems to me they ought to teach it.

Hell, it worked wonders for Johnny Cochran at the OJ trial too. The jury made an entirely emotional decision.

In fact, most jury members are fucking idiots who make emotional decisions. I can't tell you how many times I've read interviews with jurors who said "if they were innocent why didn't they testify?". It makes me want to scream. The state needs to prove your guilt, you don't prove your innocence. But I digress.

Appealing to emotion can be a good strategy, with the pitfalls Dr. Y described.

However the attorney's decision to appeal to emotion should have been arrived to as a logical decision of strategy. I guarantee JC didn't get up there during the OJ trial and pour his heart out off the cuff. He looked at the evidence, realized his client is fucked if they only appeal to the jury's logical assessment of the evidence and decided that an appeal to emotion is his most logical choice of strategy. OJ's attorneys weren't brilliant because they were these out of control emotional guys. They were brilliant because they could coldly and logically employ emotion as a tool for their client.

Teaching those young men and women to think in that is arguably far more important than any memorization of case law. That's why so many choose philosophy and poli-sci as an undergrad. It lays a basis of logical thinking... or at least should.