4 ms·

That always confused me: if juries are the arbiters of fact (as instructed by a judge), why can't they consult external references? Why do they have to rely exc

That always confused me: if juries are the arbiters of fact (as instructed by a judge), why can't they consult external references? Why do they have to rely exclusively on testimony and their predetermined factual knowledge?

eximius 9y ago
Presumably each side will present the best facts available to fill in the jury members knowledge. Can you imagine if jury members (some of whom might believe in homeopathy or other bizarre pseudoscience) were allowed to base their judgements on `facts` not presented by one of the parties involved? It'd be madness, very quickly.
- yorwba 9y ago
  > Can you imagine if jury members (some of whom might believe in homeopathy or other bizarre pseudoscience) were allowed to base their judgements on `facts` not presented by one of the parties involved? But jury members are allowed to use their pre-existing knowledge of homeopathy, are they not? They're just prevented from learning more about homeopathy (or psychopathology) in a way that could influence their decision. Now I wonder if an elementary textbook on a topic would be admissible evidence, and whether jury members would be allowed to ask for it.
- Chris_Jay 9y ago
  That a jury is made of common people who might have a wide range of beliefs seems rather the point of the system though doesn't it? Also, this is your weekly reminder that vaccines are homeopathy.
  - eximius 9y ago
    Vaccines and allergy shots are NOT homeopathy and that is extremely dangerous to say. Homeopathy is characterized by the belief that 'like cures like'. They ingest poisons to innoculate themselves to fevers, etc. It is very, very different from simply gaining a resistance to specific compounds.
maxxxxx 9y ago
That's the way juries work. I was on one two years ago and was pretty frustrated with the way the defense presented facts. But you have to live with what you are presented with and can't ask any questions even if you think there are gaps.
int_19h 9y ago
I believe it's so as to navigate the complicated evidence exclusion rules. The other option would be to require the jury to ignore some evidence after having heard it (which they already do sometimes when they don't catch it earlier) - but the general assumption is that it'll still have an effect then, and that's unfair.

eximius 9y ago

Presumably each side will present the best facts available to fill in the jury members knowledge. Can you imagine if jury members (some of whom might believe in homeopathy or other bizarre pseudoscience) were allowed to base their judgements on `facts` not presented by one of the parties involved? It'd be madness, very quickly.

yorwba 9y ago
> Can you imagine if jury members (some of whom might believe in homeopathy or other bizarre pseudoscience) were allowed to base their judgements on `facts` not presented by one of the parties involved? But jury members are allowed to use their pre-existing knowledge of homeopathy, are they not? They're just prevented from learning more about homeopathy (or psychopathology) in a way that could influence their decision. Now I wonder if an elementary textbook on a topic would be admissible evidence, and whether jury members would be allowed to ask for it.
Chris_Jay 9y ago
That a jury is made of common people who might have a wide range of beliefs seems rather the point of the system though doesn't it? Also, this is your weekly reminder that vaccines are homeopathy.
- eximius 9y ago
  Vaccines and allergy shots are NOT homeopathy and that is extremely dangerous to say. Homeopathy is characterized by the belief that 'like cures like'. They ingest poisons to innoculate themselves to fevers, etc. It is very, very different from simply gaining a resistance to specific compounds.

maxxxxx 9y ago

That's the way juries work. I was on one two years ago and was pretty frustrated with the way the defense presented facts. But you have to live with what you are presented with and can't ask any questions even if you think there are gaps.

int_19h 9y ago

I believe it's so as to navigate the complicated evidence exclusion rules. The other option would be to require the jury to ignore some evidence after having heard it (which they already do sometimes when they don't catch it earlier) - but the general assumption is that it'll still have an effect then, and that's unfair.