6 ms·

When a jury ruled that Monsanto "caused" cancer, companies across the USA shuddered at the lunacy of the nonscientific verdict, and vowed never to allow a jury

When a jury ruled that Monsanto "caused" cancer, companies across the USA shuddered at the lunacy of the nonscientific verdict, and vowed never to allow a jury to rule on such decisions ever again. Prevents those "lets stick it to that big company" decisions too.

dheera 5y ago
Can anything good come of a jury? Considering how badly they disrespect peoples' time and pandemic safety in scheduling jury duty, most educated, busy, and capable people would want to get out of it, leaving very likely a bunch of less-educated people and anti-vaxxers to be on the jury.
- bawolff 5y ago
  If you trust people like "you" more than the "state" to decide what your fate is. The modern state with mostly impartial judiciary seems pretty good right now, but i imagine that wasn't true in various times and places. Jury nullification is also an interesting practise (see for example abortion in canada)
  - TheRealPomax 5y ago
    Which modern state? Macedonia? Russia? The US? Finland? I'd trust exactly one of those four.
    - bawolff 5y ago
      I meant america, or another "western" country like canada or the uk.
      - aaomidi 5y ago
        Impartial judiciary? This is news to me.
      - kmonsen 5y ago
        Have you seen our (USA) supreme court? Calling them impartial is taking it a bit far I would say.
        kube-system 5y ago
        Have you seen courts in other countries? SCOTUS does a pretty good job. Even justices that I don’t like write logically consistent and sound arguments, and we have very recent evidence to show that they hold their ideals above favoritism. Don’t mistake SCOTUS justices’ philosophical differences as partiality.
      - TheRealPomax 5y ago
        I'd so much rather my case be heard by a group of qualified judges (that's right, group. Your case is heard by three judges, to make sure no one judge gets to manipulate a case on a whim) who got their job because they were appointed based on their career track, rather than because they were elected by an electorate who hasn't the slightest idea how insane that is. (lawyers need to be bar-qualified, but judges amazingly need zero qualification. Wtf, US?) And that's before we actually look at the reliability of a jury trial: the letter of the law might claim it's a jury of peers, but that's never the case from the outset, and then lawyers get to demand that the only people who might actually do any reasonable thinking get replaced if they know a reasonable thinking person would conclude their client's guilty. The system is so messed up, you could write multiple books about it. Which people have.
        bawolff 5y ago
        I was under the impression that peer meant in olden times a nobleman couldnt judge a commoner. Doesn't seem as relavant today.
- bunfunton 5y ago
  Yeah. A National hero / amazing community member gets busted growing some weed. The charge is 10 years in prison. I sure hope there’s a jury so they can throw it out / nullify out
  - jdavis703 5y ago
    No one is charged with a set amount of jail time. They’re charged with specific crimes which may have mandatory minimums (assuming the jury convicts on all charges).
- nathanvanfleet 5y ago
  You alright?
hanniabu 5y ago
Well the thing is that there's a high likeliness that monsanto did cause cancer, but it's impossible to prove it 100%.
- andromeduck 5y ago
  Impossible to prove it 10% too.
  - TheRealPomax 5y ago
    10% is trivial to prove, it's just not enough for a conviction in any sane court.
- beervirus 5y ago
  Preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not) is the usual burden in civil claims.
josefx 5y ago
> When a jury ruled that Monsanto "caused" cancer Did they actually use those words? As far as I remember they convicted Monsanto mostly on messing with the "independent" studies that should have confirmed their weed killers safety, using various "friends" in key positions to shut down any study that went out of line before it could go anywhere. All documented in an internal email chain discussing various means in great detail. > shuddered at the lunacy of the nonscientific verdict, Science went out of the window the moment Monsanto started to actively taint the research through political means.
- bluGill 5y ago
  They ruled in one case that roundup caused a particular person's cancer. Even though medically 80% of cases of that type of cancer do not have an environmental cause (ie random mutation is responsible for 80% of cases).
  - josefx 5y ago
    So every fifth case has an environmental cause and Monsanto got caught pants down actively interfering with the legally required process^1 that was used to certify their weed killers as not being a environmental hazard, including being a cause for cancer. ^1 The results of independent studies are supposed to act as basis for government approval.
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  (not OP) https://apnews.com/article/courts-health-cancer-government-and-politics-a9c4eb00d40988bddd7c936dd7f388ae https://apnews.com/article/courts-health-cancer-government-a...

dheera 5y ago

Can anything good come of a jury? Considering how badly they disrespect peoples' time and pandemic safety in scheduling jury duty, most educated, busy, and capable people would want to get out of it, leaving very likely a bunch of less-educated people and anti-vaxxers to be on the jury.

bawolff 5y ago
If you trust people like "you" more than the "state" to decide what your fate is. The modern state with mostly impartial judiciary seems pretty good right now, but i imagine that wasn't true in various times and places. Jury nullification is also an interesting practise (see for example abortion in canada)
- TheRealPomax 5y ago
  Which modern state? Macedonia? Russia? The US? Finland? I'd trust exactly one of those four.
  - bawolff 5y ago
    I meant america, or another "western" country like canada or the uk.
    - aaomidi 5y ago
      Impartial judiciary? This is news to me.
    - kmonsen 5y ago
      Have you seen our (USA) supreme court? Calling them impartial is taking it a bit far I would say.
      - kube-system 5y ago
        Have you seen courts in other countries? SCOTUS does a pretty good job. Even justices that I don’t like write logically consistent and sound arguments, and we have very recent evidence to show that they hold their ideals above favoritism. Don’t mistake SCOTUS justices’ philosophical differences as partiality.
    - TheRealPomax 5y ago
      I'd so much rather my case be heard by a group of qualified judges (that's right, group. Your case is heard by three judges, to make sure no one judge gets to manipulate a case on a whim) who got their job because they were appointed based on their career track, rather than because they were elected by an electorate who hasn't the slightest idea how insane that is. (lawyers need to be bar-qualified, but judges amazingly need zero qualification. Wtf, US?) And that's before we actually look at the reliability of a jury trial: the letter of the law might claim it's a jury of peers, but that's never the case from the outset, and then lawyers get to demand that the only people who might actually do any reasonable thinking get replaced if they know a reasonable thinking person would conclude their client's guilty. The system is so messed up, you could write multiple books about it. Which people have.
      - bawolff 5y ago
        I was under the impression that peer meant in olden times a nobleman couldnt judge a commoner. Doesn't seem as relavant today.
bunfunton 5y ago
Yeah. A National hero / amazing community member gets busted growing some weed. The charge is 10 years in prison. I sure hope there’s a jury so they can throw it out / nullify out
- jdavis703 5y ago
  No one is charged with a set amount of jail time. They’re charged with specific crimes which may have mandatory minimums (assuming the jury convicts on all charges).
nathanvanfleet 5y ago
You alright?

hanniabu 5y ago

Well the thing is that there's a high likeliness that monsanto did cause cancer, but it's impossible to prove it 100%.

andromeduck 5y ago
Impossible to prove it 10% too.
- TheRealPomax 5y ago
  10% is trivial to prove, it's just not enough for a conviction in any sane court.
beervirus 5y ago
Preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not) is the usual burden in civil claims.

josefx 5y ago

> When a jury ruled that Monsanto "caused" cancer Did they actually use those words? As far as I remember they convicted Monsanto mostly on messing with the "independent" studies that should have confirmed their weed killers safety, using various "friends" in key positions to shut down any study that went out of line before it could go anywhere. All documented in an internal email chain discussing various means in great detail. > shuddered at the lunacy of the nonscientific verdict, Science went out of the window the moment Monsanto started to actively taint the research through political means.

bluGill 5y ago
They ruled in one case that roundup caused a particular person's cancer. Even though medically 80% of cases of that type of cancer do not have an environmental cause (ie random mutation is responsible for 80% of cases).
- josefx 5y ago
  So every fifth case has an environmental cause and Monsanto got caught pants down actively interfering with the legally required process^1 that was used to certify their weed killers as not being a environmental hazard, including being a cause for cancer. ^1 The results of independent studies are supposed to act as basis for government approval.
LatteLazy 5y ago
(not OP) https://apnews.com/article/courts-health-cancer-government-and-politics-a9c4eb00d40988bddd7c936dd7f388ae https://apnews.com/article/courts-health-cancer-government-a...