Neither court relied on a jury verdict, my earlier post notwithstanding. Italy only tries capital cases by jury. That’s not the point, though. They use a civil law system, but its appeals courts serve they same function as appellate courts in common law systems: not reweighing evidence, but ensuring that the law is applied correctly.
As far as appellate courts are concerned, any finding of fact at trial is final. The only exception is if the factfinder *could not reasonably have concluded that the evidence supported its finding. In other words, the appeals court’s determination that the decision was justified and the evidence reliable means that it was legally sufficient, not that it was correct.
This is something that non-lawyers often get tripped up by, but the rationale is that only the trial court has the evidence in front of it. They are therefore in a better position to judge the credibility of witnesses and tangible evidence.
They didn’t “ignore scientific consensus”. It’s just that there is no real way of getting “scientific consensus” into evidence unless it’s so well settled as to be widely known to lay people. Clearly, this isn’t one of those facts. I can tell you that 500 physicists, 1200 neurologists and 800 oncologists agree that cellphones don’t cause tumors (thank you for the correction), but the court is not going to take my word for it.
It’s also questionable whether there is a consensus on this issue considering the WHO still thinks phones pose a risk.
Sure he would, but that’s not the point. Because we don’t have a King of Science who makes pronouncements from on high, it is incumbent on you to prove the young-earth creationist guy wrong.
*I think civil systems use a standard slightly different from reasonableness, but I forget exactly what it is.
I remember discussing all of the failure in logic that states have used to justify banning SSM. One thread I discussed just how abyssmal the logic was when the state argued in front of the Washington SC. Bricker and a couple other lawyers did a good job explaing rational basis and state interest and strict scrutiny which led me to one conclusion: Any resemblance between law and logic is purely coincidental.
Quote:
“means that it was legally sufficient, not that it was correct.”
That about sums it up. As I said earlier, courts are not about proving scientific fact, or scientific objectivity. All you have to do is convince the jurors of the “legal sufficiency” of the evidence presented.
As for cell phone radiation and cancer, the question could be easily answered in a number of ways-looking at people who spend their lives in RF radiation fields, the statistics of cancer/tumors, etc.
As for OJ Simpson, the evidence pointed to him in every way. The red herrings (the non-fitting glove, Mark Furman’s racism, the casual handing of the blood samples) were just that-had the prosecution explained that blood-soaked leather gloves will shrink, that Furman (despite his attitudes, was a competent and promoted LAPD detective, and the “tampering” of the blood samples would have taken the complicity of hundreds of people to arrange), the verdict could have gone the other way.
I also have a problem with the idea that courtroom trials must accommodate the defense’s antics-Judge Ito allowed the defense to put the LAPD on trial-that whole disgraceful episode was designed to confuse and bore the jurors. No human should be subject to the torture that the Simpson jry was forced to endure.
But we do have concepts like “main-stream science”. I understand what the courts intend to attempt here. I just do not see how someone lacking the education and background to understand the testimony gets to decide.
shrug It’s the legacy of hundreds of years of history and the jury of one’s peers thing. In administrative law (courts created by executive agencies to interpret their own rules, such as social security disability tribunals), there are generally statutes or rules allowing courts to designate their own experts to reconcile disagreements between the parties’ experts.
The problem with doing that in ordinary civil or criminal cases is a constitutional one, though (at least in the US).
“The Commission calmed the local population down following a number of earth tremors. After the quake, we heard people’s accounts and they told us they changed their behaviour following the advice of the commission.”
“I remember the fear in her voice. On other occasions they would have fled but that night, with my father, they repeated to themselves what the risk commission had said. And they stayed.”
Sounds like the scientists and bureaucrats were charged because after receiving a series of tremors, they downplayed the potential danger. Had they said, “We have no idea if an earthquake is imminent.” they (presumably) would not have been charged. But, because they downplayed the danger, which implies that they COULD predict earthquakes, citizens failed to evacuate or move to more structurally sound buildings.
Think the Mayor of Amityville in “Jaws.”
(Note that this doesn’t mean that I agree with the verdict; I’m just trying to clarify why they were charged.)