The lawyer's theory is simple, yet profound: God created an unreasonably dangerous and ultra-hazardous condition (temptation) and failed to adequately monitor and warn the plaintiff of the inherent risks of being a human male. God assigns the case to in-house counsel who sets to work on filing the typical responses and motions.
After a slow start, the case quickly progresses to trial in Mississippi. While there initially was some difficulty seating an impartial jury (a surprising number of prospective jurors hold strong biases toward heaven and hell), the trial commences.
Naturally, every good lawyer understands the need to tell a good story. The plaintiff lawyer settles on the following case themes:
- Life is filled with temptation and want: ask me how I know.
- God failed to adequately and clearly warn of the risks, even though God knew or should have known about these risks.
- Even a cursory examination of God's record shows a pattern and practice of deceptive and unreasonably dangerous behavior.
- Hell, like McDonald's coffee, is too hot.
- The plaintiff has endured physical and emotional suffering and deserves compensation.
- The jury needs to send a message that this sort of behavior will not be tolerated by the good (and bad) citizens of this community.
In support of his case, the plaintiff marshals an impressive group of witnesses:
Lucifer: "Hell violates every freakin' OSHA standard in the book!"
University of Southern Mississippi Economist: Calculates value of the loss of eternal bliss.
Mississippi State Professor of Ethics: "Eternal damnation is morally questionable at best."
Plaintiff Marklin: "Hell, yes, I'm a victim!"
In-house counsel, no slouch himself, orchestrates his defense around the following core messages:
- Live and learn.
- Plaintiff Marklin knew the risks of sin since he was a young boy attending an oppressive religious school.
- The Ten Commandments are well publicized.
- Nothing matters; it's all predestined anyway.
- This is an attorney-driven lawsuit with no real merit.
- Should you decide to find for the plaintiff, the most he is entitled to is purgatory.
The defense presents the testimony of these fine witnesses:
St. Peter: "I calls 'em as I sees 'em."
Expert on Moral Reasoning from Harvard: "The paradoxical implication of moral integrity in the context of infinite time is that good is bad and bad is good."
Berkeley Economist: "Plaintiff's economist failed to standardize the beta weights in his multiple regression equation."
Moses: "You call that suffering?"
Groucho Marx: "I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member."
Professor of Metaphysics from MIT: "Everywhere you go, there you are."
Following rousing closing arguments, the case goes to the jury. They deliberate for 46 minutes before returning a verdict. The verdict is announced to a hushed courtroom: "We, the jury, find in favor of the plaintiff and award him the keys to the kingdom of heaven."
A consultant is retained by the defense to determine what went wrong. During the post-trial interviews, the jurors indicate that they weren't mad but thought that God could have done more to warn about the risks or, better yet, to remove the risks altogether. Most felt the warning should have been clearer, in larger type, and in brighter colors.
They also felt that some sort of automatic system should be developed to prevent people from making choices that might threaten their eternal splendor. One juror, a retired engineer, proposed a device that would beep (or vibrate if the person was in the theater) whenever a person was at risk of going to hell in a hand-basket or other conveyance. The foreperson apparently led the jury with the idea that life should be 100% consequence-free and "this personal responsibility thing has gotten way out of hand."
These arguments made sense to the other jurors. The two jurors who were hardest to persuade believed that the plaintiff was negligent, but couldn't deny that hell seemed a bit extreme. They were hoping the damages could be placed in a community repository for future generations, but upon learning that this was impossible, resignedly went along with the others.
The jurors were in agreement in their round dislike for the plaintiff Marklin as an individual, but felt their verdict was making the world a bit safer for everyone. One side note: Several jurors felt God's failure to appear at the trial was a sign of arrogance and few accepted the defense argument that "God is everywhere and besides he is really busy." The case is on appeal.
Article Source: http://ArticleCrux.com -- Free Articles, Free Web Content
Ross Laguzza, PhD is a founder of and principal in R&D Strategic Solutions, trial consultants and jury consultants specializing in trial strategy, trial tactics, and jury research.
