6 ms·

>The jury is just there to evaluate the credibility of the competing experts who have offered opinions on that question. It's not clear that they're competent

>The jury is just there to evaluate the credibility of the competing experts who have offered opinions on that question. It's not clear that they're competent to do this, either. >If lay people are not equipped to evaluate such credibility, that calls into question the very underpinnings of our policy-making institutions. Not necessarily. It just calls into question whether the system works well in this class of cases. >Whenever I have seen an actual jury at work, I have consistently been impressed by the degree to which folks can absorb the information presented at trial. Have you seen something even remotely comparable to the case being discussed here?

will_brown 7y ago
>Have you seen something even remotely comparable to the case being discussed here? The tobacco cases come to mind.
- dawnerd 7y ago
  I was part of one growing up, the jurors definitely were not just judging based on emotions or lack of facts. They end up voting on a series of yes/no questions that ultimately narrow down the decision. End of the day the judge is still in charge and if he doesn't like the result it will get tossed. We went through the process twice - winning both times no less.
- omginternets 7y ago
  Are you suggesting that the juries in those cases were competent to understand and evaluate the science of cancer? Just because they happened to make the right choice doesn't make them competent. A broken clock is right twice a day.
  - will_brown 7y ago
    >Just because they happened to make the right choice doesn't make them competent. So let me get this right...you don’t think a jury can comprehend and understand the facts being presented to them through experts, yet without hearing any facts or experts you can confirm these juries “made the right choice”? As I said before there will be educated people in this thread who down play a juries ability to make a accurate finding of fact and yet be all to happy to make their own findings without any knowledge of the facts of a given case or expert testimony, just as you did.
    - omginternets 7y ago
      >So let me get this right...you don’t think a jury can comprehend and understand the facts being presented to them through experts, yet without hearing any facts or experts you can confirm these juries “made the right choice”? Yes. It's possible to make a good decision through a flawed process.
  - fit2rule 7y ago
    So, what exactly are you arguing for - an autocratic class of rulers who make decisions for the general public about their own health?
    - omginternets 7y ago
      I'm arguing that even though the system works well in many (most?) cases, there are common corner cases in which it does not. I don't know where you're getting the idea that I endorse autocratic rulers, but it's absurd and borderline inflammatory.
JohnFen 7y ago
> It's not clear that they're competent to do this, either. What's the alternative, though?
- a1369209993 7y ago
  I'm not sure there is one, but the fact that something is the least bad option available doesn't make it not bad.
- adventured 7y ago
  The only counter suggestion I've ever seen are expert panels that remove decisions from The People and move it up the ladder of control and power, where the elites and bureaucrats can ideally be more easily paid off by companies like Bayer to rule in their favor. The elites love choke points that amplify their control over society, always under the guise that they know best (inevitably resulting in vast, systemic corruption that is nearly impossible to stop). Panels and government oversight boards are just another easy target for lobbying (in all of its various flavors). As though the US system doesn't have enough of those corruption points in place now. There are an enormous number of jury cases in the US every year however, and bribery is rare. If you replace traditional juries with expert panels, it's guaranteed that the system will be designed - by those that benefit from all other forms of lobbying - to have holes in it that allow forms of legal lobbying and influence, whether direct or indirect. I'll take juries of The People in all regards, and without exception, over the extraordinarily dangerous, anti-democratic risks involved in shifting the system toward elitist expert panels. We already have enough of that shit dominating our country as it is. I choose the less perfect system - if that's indeed the choice - that retains power in the people broadly, keeping a critically important piece of the justice system mass-involved - something we're all part of.
  - mythrwy 7y ago
    Not sure why you are downvoted. I disagree with the outcome of this case and leaving scientific decisions in the hands of people who may not have the cogitative skills to make the best assessments is an issue and would like see a solution. That being said, the moral hazards you point out do appear to be a much larger potential issue and I agree the risks of "expert panels" probably aren't worth it. We need some sort of redress to non biased citizens. Perhaps civil trials with monetary rewards are a different matter than criminal trials though, not sure. Anyway, your point is good.

will_brown 7y ago

>Have you seen something even remotely comparable to the case being discussed here? The tobacco cases come to mind.

dawnerd 7y ago
I was part of one growing up, the jurors definitely were not just judging based on emotions or lack of facts. They end up voting on a series of yes/no questions that ultimately narrow down the decision. End of the day the judge is still in charge and if he doesn't like the result it will get tossed. We went through the process twice - winning both times no less.
omginternets 7y ago
Are you suggesting that the juries in those cases were competent to understand and evaluate the science of cancer? Just because they happened to make the right choice doesn't make them competent. A broken clock is right twice a day.
- will_brown 7y ago
  >Just because they happened to make the right choice doesn't make them competent. So let me get this right...you don’t think a jury can comprehend and understand the facts being presented to them through experts, yet without hearing any facts or experts you can confirm these juries “made the right choice”? As I said before there will be educated people in this thread who down play a juries ability to make a accurate finding of fact and yet be all to happy to make their own findings without any knowledge of the facts of a given case or expert testimony, just as you did.
  - omginternets 7y ago
    >So let me get this right...you don’t think a jury can comprehend and understand the facts being presented to them through experts, yet without hearing any facts or experts you can confirm these juries “made the right choice”? Yes. It's possible to make a good decision through a flawed process.
- fit2rule 7y ago
  So, what exactly are you arguing for - an autocratic class of rulers who make decisions for the general public about their own health?
  - omginternets 7y ago
    I'm arguing that even though the system works well in many (most?) cases, there are common corner cases in which it does not. I don't know where you're getting the idea that I endorse autocratic rulers, but it's absurd and borderline inflammatory.

JohnFen 7y ago

> It's not clear that they're competent to do this, either. What's the alternative, though?

a1369209993 7y ago
I'm not sure there is one, but the fact that something is the least bad option available doesn't make it not bad.
adventured 7y ago
The only counter suggestion I've ever seen are expert panels that remove decisions from The People and move it up the ladder of control and power, where the elites and bureaucrats can ideally be more easily paid off by companies like Bayer to rule in their favor. The elites love choke points that amplify their control over society, always under the guise that they know best (inevitably resulting in vast, systemic corruption that is nearly impossible to stop). Panels and government oversight boards are just another easy target for lobbying (in all of its various flavors). As though the US system doesn't have enough of those corruption points in place now. There are an enormous number of jury cases in the US every year however, and bribery is rare. If you replace traditional juries with expert panels, it's guaranteed that the system will be designed - by those that benefit from all other forms of lobbying - to have holes in it that allow forms of legal lobbying and influence, whether direct or indirect. I'll take juries of The People in all regards, and without exception, over the extraordinarily dangerous, anti-democratic risks involved in shifting the system toward elitist expert panels. We already have enough of that shit dominating our country as it is. I choose the less perfect system - if that's indeed the choice - that retains power in the people broadly, keeping a critically important piece of the justice system mass-involved - something we're all part of.
- mythrwy 7y ago
  Not sure why you are downvoted. I disagree with the outcome of this case and leaving scientific decisions in the hands of people who may not have the cogitative skills to make the best assessments is an issue and would like see a solution. That being said, the moral hazards you point out do appear to be a much larger potential issue and I agree the risks of "expert panels" probably aren't worth it. We need some sort of redress to non biased citizens. Perhaps civil trials with monetary rewards are a different matter than criminal trials though, not sure. Anyway, your point is good.