4 ms·

>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.

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.