3 ms·
I agree with some of your points but if you think judges are the answer I'd guess you haven't met many judges.
by staticautomatic 8y ago
I agree with some of your points but if you think judges are the answer I'd guess you haven't met many judges.
- gamblor956 8y agoI agree. Juries are far better at understanding science than judges. The only cases I ever lost were bench trials (before judges, no juries) where the judges refused to accept scientific challenges (backed by actual research) to the prosecution's pseudo-science evidence.
- staticautomatic 8y agoYeah. Jury consultant here. Juries definitely have their problems but a lot of the scary bad things I've seen happen in trials have stemmed from bad rulings by the judge. I'm reminded of a case I had where the judge refused to DQ an expert economist who produced a damages model with a p value of 0.5 (yeah, not 0.05). Basically all the defendants had to settle because it had the judge's imprimatur and they wouldn't be able to convince the jurors it was bullshit. It's easy to blame juries when there are bad outcomes but a lot of the time their bad decisions are precipitated by bad rulings.