Exploring the Golden Rule Argument: Legal Insights and Implications
Definition & Meaning
The golden rule argument is a persuasive technique used in jury trials, primarily by the prosecution. It encourages jurors to empathize with the victim by imagining themselves in that person's position. The goal is to influence the jurors' decision-making process by appealing to their emotions rather than strictly relying on factual evidence. However, courts often disapprove of this argument because it can lead to biased verdicts based on feelings rather than objective analysis of the case.
Legal Use & context
This argument is commonly found in criminal cases where the prosecution seeks to elicit sympathy for the victim. It can also appear in civil cases, particularly those involving personal injury claims. While the golden rule argument is not typically supported by the court, understanding its use is essential for both legal professionals and jurors. Users can manage related legal documents through resources like US Legal Forms, which provide templates for various legal situations.
Real-world examples
Here are a couple of examples of abatement:
In a criminal trial for assault, the prosecution might ask jurors to consider how they would feel if they were the victim of the attack. This emotional framing aims to sway their verdict. (hypothetical example)
In a civil case for a car accident, the plaintiff's attorney may urge jurors to visualize the pain and suffering experienced by the injured party, hoping to elicit a sympathetic response that influences the damages awarded.