4 ms·
What is it about not being a lawyer (psychiatrist, economist, whatever) that makes people feel their contributions, though unqualified and generally incorrect,
by oldmanjay 11y ago
What is it about not being a lawyer (psychiatrist, economist, whatever) that makes people feel their contributions, though unqualified and generally incorrect, are still valuable? Is there a magical state of not-being that I've never picked up?
- logfromblammo 11y agoGenerally, it's because we feel that layman opinions on how the law work should affect how it actually works in a democratic society. For instance, civil forfeiture, wherein property can be taken from a person who has not been proven guilty of a crime in a fair trial, is widely rejected by the public, even when the opinion poll uses the most biased questions possible. (i.e. Should drug dealers be allowed to keep the profits from their crimes if they escape conviction and punishment on a technicality?) Also, a jury verdict is little more than an aggregated bunch of layman opinions. The opinion of the general public is that software should not have bugs in it. Also, it should be gratis and always keep up with the latest GUI and HID fashion trends. As a software professional, I often do additional work to meet those public expectations, even if it has no technical merit. That's because the opinion of the customer matters, when they are employing the experts to work on their behalf.
- JupiterMoon 11y agoI include that I am not a lawyer partly to provide a warning that I am probably wrong and that what I am saying is not particularly valuable. I welcome someone that is an expert jumping in and correcting me...