4 ms·
Both sides have right to know and rebut all evidence. Allowing jury to pursue independent evidence circumvents that and would be injustice. More practically d
by 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 agoAh, 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 agoBecause 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 agoThank 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