They’re still ignorant, because the law keeps them ignorant. Only what you say and your opponent say is allowed to be considered.
Or the incompetence of the Los Angeles DA?
Goes to the OP’s state of mind, indicative of bias.
Goes beyond state of mind, and is indeed prejudicial. Sit down.
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.
…says a lawyer :rolleyes:
(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)
Wait…what?
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)
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
What the fuck are you talking about? Where are these outside facts going to come from?
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:
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”.
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).
In favour of…?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, and I guess on some level I understand his point.
But this:
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.