5 ms·
>Jury == random number generator. Maybe they get it right, but only by chance. They may be laymen on the subject, but they heard the evidence and expert testim
by will_brown 7y ago
>Jury == random number generator. Maybe they get it right, but only by chance.
They may be laymen on the subject, but they heard the evidence and expert testimony...that makes them more knowledgeable about the facts than anyone in this thread, and yet you’ll see many educated people here with opinions without any facts (beyond newspaper articles).
And while they may be better equipped to make a finding of fact of a criminal case (did person x do y), but often it’s still just a chance they get it right, plus those criminal cases have a much higher standard than a civil case.
So it’s important to keep in mind what is being asked of the jury here. They aren’t asking if roundup cause cancer, not even asking did roundup cause cancer beyond a reasonable doubt, but simply based on the expert testimony and facts presented is it more likely than not (>50% chance) Roundup caused cancer.
- gowld 7y agoExpert testimony just mean two opposing claims paid for by the respective sides. The jury is in no position to determine which claim is more correct.
- will_brown 7y agoActually that is the exact position the jury is in, and they do it everyday. Do you have any evidence or studies to suggest juries can’t determine credibility of expert testimony?
- buzzdenver 7y agoIt's almost impossible to determine credibility in a field that you know nothing about. Any sufficiently complicated question can be argued using facts on both sides, and a non-expert will have no idea how much weight each fact should have. For example anyone in software could argue why using the cloud for anything is a horrible idea. And remember that jurors are not allowed to do research at home, and expert witnesses cannot directly debate the topics.
- checkyoursudo 7y ago> a non-expert will have no idea how much weight each fact should have In theory, that is the purpose of the lawyer(s) -- to try to ground the technical expertise in a way that the jury (and often the judge!) can understand and assign value/import/trustworthiness/credibility to the testimony and exhibits they are given. in theory.
- galvin 7y agoExperts testifying under oath present facts. The jury doesn't determine which experts are correct, they use the facts to evaluate the opposing claims.
- staticautomatic 7y agoExpert witnesses are there to present opinions. Fact witnesses are there to present facts.
- miguelmota 7y ago> The jury is in no position to determine which claim is more correct. Society determines what is correct or wrong. A jury is a random selection of society. Anyone who wants provide a good to a society must follow principles set by the society.
- ekianjo 7y agoAnd maybe Society gets things wrong right? We dont torture people to get confessions anymore (in most western countries at least) so surely our standards evolve over time. We are not at the Apex of everything yet.
- miguelmota 7y agoYes society sometimes gets things 'wrong' in retrospective
- UnFleshedOne 7y agoNot 'wrong', just wrong. There is such a thing as an objective truth (for a given question), and you can be relatively closer to or farther from it than the next guy (or next 8 billion guys).
- dhkxh 7y agoNo - the facts don't change just because a large enough number of people disagree.
- miguelmota 7y agoFacts in a society are what that society deems or 'proven to be as truth'. Most facts are indeed a fact because a large amount of people (in the respective field) agree that it is a 'fact' ('irrefutable truth' as seen by that society or group).
- dawnerd 7y agoJuries combine those expert testimonies with documents from discovery to try to piece together the real story. In this case they were likely trying to determine if the company new it was dangerous, if they knew it caused cancer, if they tried to cover it up, etc.
- rmrfrmrf 7y agoWhy would anyone else be more equipped?