In the jury selection phase of a murder trial, one of the attorneys asked a prospective juror:
"Would you be able to enter a guilty verdict if you knew that such a verdict would condemn the defendant to death?"
The person replied: "No. I beleive that human life is the most important thing, and must be preserved above all else."
The lawyer asked: "So you will hold to this even though it may keep you off this jury?"
"Yes," the person replied.
How did the lawyer know he was lying?
I dont' see how this is a logic problem. It is more like a huge assumption. If there was a category called "Huge Mindless Assumptions" then this question would fit perfectly. But logic, no way. Maybe the guy will not geton the jury, but then schedule a prison break to save the perp. Then all the humans will be alive and he can go home and play some Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. What a great game.
What?
