# Example why legal courts will wither on the vine: One decides mobile phones cause brain tumours **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [October 19, 2012, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/example-why-legal-courts-will-wither-on-the-vine-one-decides-mobile-phones-cause-brain-tumours/638192 "2012-10-19T03:10:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2012, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/example-why-legal-courts-will-wither-on-the-vine-one-decides-mobile-phones-cause-brain-tumours/638192/21 "2012-10-20T12:45:26Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Having spent a considerable part of my last 25 years talking to juries, I can assure you that they are not usually “ignorant.” I’ve found that the vast majority of time, they are trying hard and working through the evidence and reaching a rational result (even when I don’t like it). As for your assertion that “you don’t have to prove anything,” it is, unfortunately, just the opposite. Many conservative judges think it is there job to stand between an injured plaintiff and a corporation’s money, and throw out the case on summary judgment before you even get to see a jury. The procedure to frustrate a litigant’s right to have a jury decide the case (see Seventh Amendment) often results in more injustice than all the best implant cases combined. > > We have a wonderful system to resolve disputes and seek justice in this country. I’m tired of seeing it attacked by the right wing thoughtless attack machine. They’re still ignorant, because the law keeps them ignorant. Only what you say and your opponent say is allowed to be considered. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2012, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/example-why-legal-courts-will-wither-on-the-vine-one-decides-mobile-phones-cause-brain-tumours/638192/22 "2012-10-20T13:12:46Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > I’d say the OJ Simpson case is proof of the ignorance of most jurors! Or the incompetence of the Los Angeles DA? ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2012, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/example-why-legal-courts-will-wither-on-the-vine-one-decides-mobile-phones-cause-brain-tumours/638192/23 "2012-10-20T15:35:13Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > Objection; relevance? Goes to the OP’s state of mind, indicative of bias. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2012, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/example-why-legal-courts-will-wither-on-the-vine-one-decides-mobile-phones-cause-brain-tumours/638192/24 "2012-10-20T15:37:05Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Goes to the OP’s state of mind, indicative of bias. Goes beyond state of mind, and is indeed prejudicial. Sit down. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2012, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/example-why-legal-courts-will-wither-on-the-vine-one-decides-mobile-phones-cause-brain-tumours/638192/25 "2012-10-20T15:45:10Z")
I was willing to let the Knox and Simpson verdicts slide. But now the court system has produced another questionable verdict? That’s one too many. The rule of law is over. ---
**Author:** ![Simple\_Linctus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Simple\_Linctus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simple_Linctus)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2012, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/example-why-legal-courts-will-wither-on-the-vine-one-decides-mobile-phones-cause-brain-tumours/638192/26 "2012-10-20T18:13:04Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > …says the recently convicted felon. :rolleyes: > > I suspect court will continue to exist as the primary means of dispute resolution for centuries to come. …says a lawyer :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Simple\_Linctus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Simple\_Linctus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simple_Linctus)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2012, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/example-why-legal-courts-will-wither-on-the-vine-one-decides-mobile-phones-cause-brain-tumours/638192/27 "2012-10-20T18:14:59Z")
(not that I have a problem with lawyers, but if my conviction is remotely relevant to the idea of courts judging reality as opposed to what they should be doing, namely applying the law, then I can’t see how your profession isn’t more relevant) ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2012, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/example-why-legal-courts-will-wither-on-the-vine-one-decides-mobile-phones-cause-brain-tumours/638192/28 "2012-10-20T18:46:42Z")
> [@Simple\_Linctus](#): > > the idea of courts judging reality as opposed to what they should be doing, namely applying the law Wait…what? ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2012, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/example-why-legal-courts-will-wither-on-the-vine-one-decides-mobile-phones-cause-brain-tumours/638192/29 "2012-10-21T23:06:38Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > I’d say the OJ Simpson case is proof of the ignorance of most jurors! I’d say the OJ Simpson case is proof of the ignorance of _that_ jury, or possibly evidence of a botched case by the prosecution. FWIW, Marcia Clark herself hinted that whatever went wrong with their case, it wasn’t the racial composition of the jury. (Not that I’m in a position to say for sure; IANAL) ---
**Author:** ![Simple\_Linctus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Simple\_Linctus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simple_Linctus)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2012, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/example-why-legal-courts-will-wither-on-the-vine-one-decides-mobile-phones-cause-brain-tumours/638192/30 "2012-10-21T23:38:24Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Wait…what? Seems a clear distinction to me. Courts should be moving (and we’re not there yet) towards deciding only legal issues imo. At the moment they have a fact finding role as well\*. I appreciate that at present they need to decide facts, but eventually that should be phased out. But when it comes to stuff like frigging mobile phone signals causing tumours, there’s no way that it should be up to a court to decide what is what there. \*whole point of the jury AIUI ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2012, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/example-why-legal-courts-will-wither-on-the-vine-one-decides-mobile-phones-cause-brain-tumours/638192/31 "2012-10-21T23:57:14Z")
What the fuck are you talking about? Where are these outside facts going to come from? > [@kayaker](#): > > I disagree. [From Science Based Medicine blog:](http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/new-data-on-cell-phones-and-cancer/) > > Unless you have a counter-cite, I’ll go with Neurologist Steven Novella. That’s not what I mean. The point is that the plaintiff had to put up evidence convincing enough for the jury and sufficient to withstand appeal. Science may not say cellphones cause cancer, but _scientists_ did here - and apparently were more convincing than the other scientists. [QUOTE=ralph124] I’d say the OJ Simpson case is proof of the ignorance of most jurors! [/QUOTE] The law enforcement official in charge of the investigation planted evidence, lied on the stand, and you expect the jury to convict? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2012, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/example-why-legal-courts-will-wither-on-the-vine-one-decides-mobile-phones-cause-brain-tumours/638192/32 "2012-10-22T00:21:46Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The point is that the plaintiff had to put up evidence convincing enough for the jury and sufficient to withstand appeal. Dunno if the original court relied on a jury verdict, but the ruling complained about in the OP did not. \*"Italy’s supreme court rejected an INAIL appeal against that ruling on October 12 though its decision was only reported on Friday. It said the lower court’s decision was justified and that scientific evidence advanced in support of the claim was reliable. \* So the Supreme Court justices in Italy decided to ignore scientific consensus on cell phones and tumors and to find that lower court testimony was “reliable”. > [@Really Not All That Bright](#): > > Science may not say cellphones cause cancer, but _scientists_ did here - and apparently were more convincing than the other scientists. The tumor that cellphone use allegedly caused in this case was not cancer, but a benign cranial nerve tumor (evidently a schwannoma, which is a nerve sheath growth that doesn’t metastasize, but due to its location can cause serious problems). ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2012, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/example-why-legal-courts-will-wither-on-the-vine-one-decides-mobile-phones-cause-brain-tumours/638192/33 "2012-10-22T00:27:56Z")
> [@Simple\_Linctus](#): > > I appreciate that at present they need to decide facts, but eventually that should be phased out. In favour of…? ---
**Author:** ![Simple\_Linctus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Simple\_Linctus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simple_Linctus)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2012, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/example-why-legal-courts-will-wither-on-the-vine-one-decides-mobile-phones-cause-brain-tumours/638192/34 "2012-10-22T00:29:28Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > In favour of…? In so much as is possible, facts being found quantitatively. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2012, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/example-why-legal-courts-will-wither-on-the-vine-one-decides-mobile-phones-cause-brain-tumours/638192/35 "2012-10-22T00:34:19Z")
> [@Simple\_Linctus](#): > > In so much as is possible, facts being found quantitatively. OK, how do you decide if someone is quantitatively guilty of stalking? Or of assault? ---
**Author:** ![Simple\_Linctus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Simple\_Linctus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simple_Linctus)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2012, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/example-why-legal-courts-will-wither-on-the-vine-one-decides-mobile-phones-cause-brain-tumours/638192/36 "2012-10-22T00:36:17Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Goes to the OP’s state of mind, indicative of bias. I have another thing to say about this, by the way. My case had nothing really to do with the current legal system. In fact I was exceptionally pleased with not just my lawyer, but also rest of the court staff including the judge equivilant (deputy high bailiff) and heck even the prosecuter who was a reasonable person. My quarrel there is entirely with the obscene law, not the application of it which was more than fair. What I am discussing in this thread has nothing to do with that at all. It’s all about the division of expertise. The legal profession should stick to what it is trained for - which is the law. Everything else should be up to betters. ---
**Author:** ![Simple\_Linctus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Simple\_Linctus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simple_Linctus)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2012, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/example-why-legal-courts-will-wither-on-the-vine-one-decides-mobile-phones-cause-brain-tumours/638192/37 "2012-10-22T00:40:19Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > OK, how do you decide if someone is quantitatively guilty of stalking? Or of assault? You need to start with civil reform first, really, because at least there you have a percentage target where you can aim for 50% accuracy. If we got as far as civil law, you would just find out whatever the elements are of a stalking offence and see if they had been proven all together with a probability of X%. I suggest that 99.95% is a reasonably decent threshold for proving beyond reasonable doubt although maybe others prefer different values. By the way I don’t suggest that that is necessarily do able with modern technology; indeed I remember poo pooing someone who recently suggested a similar idea of getting a jury to come up with those estimates. But it ought to be done eventually. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2012, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/example-why-legal-courts-will-wither-on-the-vine-one-decides-mobile-phones-cause-brain-tumours/638192/38 "2012-10-22T02:21:03Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > That’s not what I mean. The point is that the plaintiff had to put up evidence convincing enough for the jury and sufficient to withstand appeal. Science may not say cellphones cause cancer, but _scientists_ did here - and apparently were more convincing than the other scientists. But that ain’t how science works. I can find a young-earth believing scientist who would passionately explain why he believes as he does. He may be “convincing”, but he’d still be full of shit. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2012, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/example-why-legal-courts-will-wither-on-the-vine-one-decides-mobile-phones-cause-brain-tumours/638192/39 "2012-10-22T04:32:10Z")
> [@Simple\_Linctus](#): > > The legal profession should stick to what it is trained for - which is the law. Everything else should be up to betters. You, like many, totally misunderstand what lawyers do and what training they have. In fact, most of what lawyer do is gather, organise, analyse and present information. What many lawyers spend much of their time doing is presenting competing expert views to courts, in disputes not capable of resolution by reference to neat quantitative analysis. Those experts are more often than not scientifically trained, and yet they often disagree vociferously. Disputes capable of resolution by reference to neat quantitive analysis are usually resolved well short of a courtroom, because the outcome is usually obvious. It sounds to me like the Italian court got it wrong. Courts are a long way from perfect, and shit happens unfortunately. The court system is (like democracy) a terrible institution that has nothing going for it except the fact that no one has come up with anything better. And **kayaker** I think you miss \*\*RNATB’s \*\*point. Of course ultimately what should be important is who is right and who is wrong. But if I’m understanding \*\*RNATB’s \*\*point, it is that it is naive to think you can simply resolve disputes on the basis of what scientists say, and this case is a classic illustration of why: scientists sometimes don’t agree even amongst themselves. There has to be an arbiter in such cases. Arbiters get it wrong some times but that doesn’t mean you don’t need them. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2012, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/example-why-legal-courts-will-wither-on-the-vine-one-decides-mobile-phones-cause-brain-tumours/638192/40 "2012-10-22T10:46:05Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > And **kayaker** I think you miss \*\*RNATB’s \*\*point. Of course ultimately what should be important is who is right and who is wrong. But if I’m understanding \*\*RNATB’s \*\*point, it is that it is naive to think you can simply resolve disputes on the basis of what scientists say, and this case is a classic illustration of why: scientists sometimes don’t agree even amongst themselves. There has to be an arbiter in such cases. Arbiters get it wrong some times but that doesn’t mean you don’t need them. Yes, and I guess on some level I understand his point. But this: > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Uh… science established the danger of phone radiation _in this court_. What do you think they presented as evidence? is all kinda wrong. Just because evidence presented was misunderstood, doesn’t mean “science established” something. He’ll, my background is in science. I’ve discussed the cell phone/cancer thing with people in the neurosciences. I can’t imagine someone without advanced training in biology, physics, and the mathematics of statistics being able to consider the situation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/example-why-legal-courts-will-wither-on-the-vine-one-decides-mobile-phones-cause-brain-tumours/638192.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/example-why-legal-courts-will-wither-on-the-vine-one-decides-mobile-phones-cause-brain-tumours/638192.md?page=3)