3 ms·

Hmm this is very distressing because all the relevant societal facts and not just the facts that paid for floor time must have voice in the court system. Inadm

by sova 9y ago

Hmm this is very distressing because all the relevant societal facts and not just the facts that paid for floor time must have voice in the court system. Inadmissible evidence and Evidence policies should not preclude common sense, inquisitiveness, a desire and action to become informed on a topic, and general understanding. In a case where media exposure would implicate certain individuals I can understand an imperative such as "watch no TV" but how in good conscience can one say "learn no more about the matter than what you know this very moment!" Seems like an easy recipe for buy-the-verdicts-you-like

fleitz 9y ago
An independent jury undermines the power of the court and the government. If you let juries make decisions next thing you know you get verdicts like not guilty.
- sova 9y ago
  Aha, your sarcasm was hard to detect at first. Yes, although a "jury of your peers" implies a whole lot of nonsense, so...
rictic 9y ago
There are people whose epistemic hygiene I'd trust enough to think that their independent research would bend the outcome of the case towards truth. I don't know if the average person would though.
- sova 9y ago
  Epistemic Hygiene is next to Godliness
asddddd 9y ago
Look at a case like Shkreli's [1], where the case (and it's facts) are generally unrelated to most media coverage and public opinion. Is it an impartial jury if they decide to convict the defendant based on evidence which is irrelevant to the case (and thus excluded)? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-26/shkreli-meets-potential-juror-for-trial-who-sees-a-snake https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-26/shkreli-m...
- sova 9y ago
  I don't think the point is for the jury to strive for some sort of moral reasoning that is beyond the understanding of the Society, and I don't think it's possible for a jury to be completely independent (what is independent completely in the world anywhere?) but I see what you mean, you bring about a compelling point. This person was already convicted in the hearts of the jury, not really leaving much room for the judiciary process. The process, however unbalanced and messed up it may be, still has a lot of merit and potential. In the ideal way, anyone who is innocent will never ever be found guilty, and someone who is guilty will probably be found guilty. For my personal point of view these days, I think it is more important for no innocent person to go to prison, than to make sure that all the guilty ones (and some not guilty ones) go. That's a big question of implementation. The tricky thing with a case like Shkreli's is that what you are being tried for, and what the jury wants to put you into jail for, are potentially different things. Very difficult to extricate. If he was in court for grand theft auto and he had a perfect alibi, he still might be found guilty just because it's an opportunity for the jury to deal out some "righteous punishment" given the opportunity. Is this judiciary morality and ethics? Is it a greater-scope of ethical absolution? It's really hard to say. The court tries you on a specific set of bullet points, and if you don't get convicted you're free to go, but the emotional closure may not have happened. At any rate, I don't think "Punishment for the Crime" is the only adage we can continue with in our modern society. We also need to make provisions for rehabilitation, amelioration, healing, and in general promoting the psychic health and welfare of people who are deemed "perpetrators" instead of labeling them as lost causes (until of course they re-emerge into Society and the issues have been substantially compounded).
njharman 9y ago
Both sides have right to know and rebut all evidence. Allowing jury to pursue independent evidence circumvents that and would be injustice. More practically do you really want jury basing their verdict on whichever truth gets top Google result or who paid enough to have gotten their message repeated. In the era of Fox and other fake news? In that case taser wouldn't either bother with the science and just bombard us with stories of tasering pedos and protecting YOUR daughter from rape.
- sova 9y ago
  Ah, being able to rebut evidence is good and necessary. For your general question, I must say No; but how can we defend the judicial system from exclusively showcasing "purchased experts and evidence?" That's what I'm interested in clarifying.
  - njharman 9y ago
    Because in our justice system there are two sides. Prosecution and Defense. It's required (by law) that they both act in the best interests of their client. Those interests include getting experts that support their "truth" and discrediting the experts of the other side. But, We offer justice in the USA. We don't (except in limited circumstances) offer free or cheap justice. So, the side with the more money has "unfair" advantage. This "justice favors the rich" is The Reason consumer protection and other regulation of companies is needed.
    - sova 9y ago
      Thank you for your reply, that is important to keep in mind, the "two sides" of the court battle. It is just a pity that we can't reason a more elegant solution for resolving disputes and establishing some sort of ethical behavior standard. This is good to talk about, it sheds light on the unknown, and it also keeps me optimistic because if we ever have the opportunity to revamp the system, I want all the best ideas to flourish
adrianratnapala 9y ago
The trouble is the interaction between juries, the adverserial system and expert witnesses. In general, I am in favour of the former two. But the fact is that you can get a "expert" to say anything you like. I expect this can be bad enough in a Civil Law court, because even educated judges can be bamboozled. It's worse in the Common Law system, because it provides a platform where made-for-the-event, fruadulent expertise gets the same platform as its opponent.

by sova 9y ago

fleitz 9y ago

An independent jury undermines the power of the court and the government. If you let juries make decisions next thing you know you get verdicts like not guilty.

sova 9y ago
Aha, your sarcasm was hard to detect at first. Yes, although a "jury of your peers" implies a whole lot of nonsense, so...

rictic 9y ago

There are people whose epistemic hygiene I'd trust enough to think that their independent research would bend the outcome of the case towards truth. I don't know if the average person would though.

sova 9y ago
Epistemic Hygiene is next to Godliness

asddddd 9y ago

Look at a case like Shkreli's [1], where the case (and it's facts) are generally unrelated to most media coverage and public opinion. Is it an impartial jury if they decide to convict the defendant based on evidence which is irrelevant to the case (and thus excluded)? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-26/shkreli-meets-potential-juror-for-trial-who-sees-a-snake https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-26/shkreli-m...

sova 9y ago
I don't think the point is for the jury to strive for some sort of moral reasoning that is beyond the understanding of the Society, and I don't think it's possible for a jury to be completely independent (what is independent completely in the world anywhere?) but I see what you mean, you bring about a compelling point. This person was already convicted in the hearts of the jury, not really leaving much room for the judiciary process. The process, however unbalanced and messed up it may be, still has a lot of merit and potential. In the ideal way, anyone who is innocent will never ever be found guilty, and someone who is guilty will probably be found guilty. For my personal point of view these days, I think it is more important for no innocent person to go to prison, than to make sure that all the guilty ones (and some not guilty ones) go. That's a big question of implementation. The tricky thing with a case like Shkreli's is that what you are being tried for, and what the jury wants to put you into jail for, are potentially different things. Very difficult to extricate. If he was in court for grand theft auto and he had a perfect alibi, he still might be found guilty just because it's an opportunity for the jury to deal out some "righteous punishment" given the opportunity. Is this judiciary morality and ethics? Is it a greater-scope of ethical absolution? It's really hard to say. The court tries you on a specific set of bullet points, and if you don't get convicted you're free to go, but the emotional closure may not have happened. At any rate, I don't think "Punishment for the Crime" is the only adage we can continue with in our modern society. We also need to make provisions for rehabilitation, amelioration, healing, and in general promoting the psychic health and welfare of people who are deemed "perpetrators" instead of labeling them as lost causes (until of course they re-emerge into Society and the issues have been substantially compounded).

njharman 9y ago

Both sides have right to know and rebut all evidence. Allowing jury to pursue independent evidence circumvents that and would be injustice. More practically do you really want jury basing their verdict on whichever truth gets top Google result or who paid enough to have gotten their message repeated. In the era of Fox and other fake news? In that case taser wouldn't either bother with the science and just bombard us with stories of tasering pedos and protecting YOUR daughter from rape.

sova 9y ago
Ah, being able to rebut evidence is good and necessary. For your general question, I must say No; but how can we defend the judicial system from exclusively showcasing "purchased experts and evidence?" That's what I'm interested in clarifying.
- njharman 9y ago
  Because in our justice system there are two sides. Prosecution and Defense. It's required (by law) that they both act in the best interests of their client. Those interests include getting experts that support their "truth" and discrediting the experts of the other side. But, We offer justice in the USA. We don't (except in limited circumstances) offer free or cheap justice. So, the side with the more money has "unfair" advantage. This "justice favors the rich" is The Reason consumer protection and other regulation of companies is needed.
  - sova 9y ago
    Thank you for your reply, that is important to keep in mind, the "two sides" of the court battle. It is just a pity that we can't reason a more elegant solution for resolving disputes and establishing some sort of ethical behavior standard. This is good to talk about, it sheds light on the unknown, and it also keeps me optimistic because if we ever have the opportunity to revamp the system, I want all the best ideas to flourish

adrianratnapala 9y ago

The trouble is the interaction between juries, the adverserial system and expert witnesses. In general, I am in favour of the former two. But the fact is that you can get a "expert" to say anything you like. I expect this can be bad enough in a Civil Law court, because even educated judges can be bamboozled. It's worse in the Common Law system, because it provides a platform where made-for-the-event, fruadulent expertise gets the same platform as its opponent.