I've used the spreadsheet process a lot myself, giving weights to each category and then scores in each category for each option. You then get an overall score.
People will argue that it's still subjective, and that is certainly true. However it at least provides a framework for that subjectivity. Instead of arguing in the large scale about options, you can argue over specific weights and scores, which can often be more productive because it's more focused.
Also I find it interesting when the one with the best score doesn't "feel" right. In that case it's good to review the scores and weights. Often in order to get the "gut feel" answer you have to modify the weighting from what you initially thought. This is then a good exercise in reflecting on what you really value.
Perhaps due to the presumption of innocence? They are constantly aware that you have to have proof beyond reasonable doubt to convict someone, whereas in other fields we are more likely to assume an answer exists?
I've used the spreadsheet process a lot myself, giving weights to each category and then scores in each category for each option. You then get an overall score.
People will argue that it's still subjective, and that is certainly true. However it at least provides a framework for that subjectivity. Instead of arguing in the large scale about options, you can argue over specific weights and scores, which can often be more productive because it's more focused.
Also I find it interesting when the one with the best score doesn't "feel" right. In that case it's good to review the scores and weights. Often in order to get the "gut feel" answer you have to modify the weighting from what you initially thought. This is then a good exercise in reflecting on what you really value.