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?

In the real world, people are inconsistent and often don't see the full consequences of their actions, it's possible the juror is not lying.

However this is a logic puzzle, where people know logic and are consistent. If the juror felt that human life was more important than anything, he would know it was more important than avoiding lying or avoiding jury service or rendering a correct verdict, and so would rather stay on the jury to prevent the death of the defendant.

Posted by Charlie on 2003-03-13 09:29:34