2 ms·

And yet every single courtroom trial is essentially a debate, and is the foundation of the US justice system.

csours 3y ago
Really makes you think, doesn't it.
mananaysiempre 3y ago
With an arbiter that’ll hopefully call bullshit on empty rhetorical tricks and even do their own research occasionally, but otherwise yes. It’s the difference between a cooperative system and an adversarial one: science would grind to a halt if cherry-picking evidence were accepted as the norm; but you could never trust the other side of a lawsuit enough to assume they’re not cherry-picking, so you have to settle for not lying, which is hopefully easier to check (thus rules on hearsay etc). Now that I’m thinking about it, another point of view might be that scientists, in addition to having less to lose from an unfavourable result, are engaged in a recurring game and thus generally cooperate[1], whereas the parties of a legal case are in a one-shot situation and thus have little choice but to defect. See also: conflict vs mistake[2]. Left for future work: how do we make (a) advertising, (b) politics more cooperative? [1] https://ncase.me/trust/ https://ncase.me/trust/ [2] https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/24/conflict-vs-mistake/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/24/conflict-vs-mistake/
rqtwteye 3y ago
Having been in a jury this debate format is a big problem. If one of the sides is not good at presenting their case, there is a problem. In one of my cases the prosecution had an expert witness that stated some totally wrong facts about visibility during sunset. Due to photography I know a lot about lighting conditions so if I hadn’t spoken up during deliberation the prosecution would have gotten away with a falsehood.
- pmarreck 3y ago
  > so if I hadn’t spoken up during deliberation You are not allowed to use your own expertise that is not presented in the trial to inform your decisions. That is by law. Or at least, it was in Massachusetts when I last served on a jury. Which brought me to actual tears, btw, because the eyewitness testimony was being weighed too heavily.
- vacuity 3y ago
  What is a better alternative?
  - csours 3y ago
    Hard to say. The French system is different, and may have better results in some cases. > In France, the Cour d’assises itself was inherited from the French Revolution. Since a law of 1941, it is a mixed jury system, meaning that lay citizens sit together with professional judges https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub/828/ https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub/828/
- tonyarkles 3y ago
  > In one of my cases the prosecution had an expert witness that stated some totally wrong facts about visibility during sunset. That kind of stuff makes me profoundly uncomfortable. Presumably, too, since the judge doesn't participate in the jury deliberations at all, the (un)credibility of said expert witness never saw the light of day. Did the accused's side raise that possibility during cross-examination at all?

Really makes you think, doesn't it.

With an arbiter that’ll hopefully call bullshit on empty rhetorical tricks and even do their own research occasionally, but otherwise yes. It’s the difference between a cooperative system and an adversarial one: science would grind to a halt if cherry-picking evidence were accepted as the norm; but you could never trust the other side of a lawsuit enough to assume they’re not cherry-picking, so you have to settle for not lying, which is hopefully easier to check (thus rules on hearsay etc). Now that I’m thinking about it, another point of view might be that scientists, in addition to having less to lose from an unfavourable result, are engaged in a recurring game and thus generally cooperate[1], whereas the parties of a legal case are in a one-shot situation and thus have little choice but to defect. See also: conflict vs mistake[2]. Left for future work: how do we make (a) advertising, (b) politics more cooperative? [1] https://ncase.me/trust/ https://ncase.me/trust/ [2] https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/24/conflict-vs-mistake/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/24/conflict-vs-mistake/

rqtwteye 3y ago

Having been in a jury this debate format is a big problem. If one of the sides is not good at presenting their case, there is a problem. In one of my cases the prosecution had an expert witness that stated some totally wrong facts about visibility during sunset. Due to photography I know a lot about lighting conditions so if I hadn’t spoken up during deliberation the prosecution would have gotten away with a falsehood.

pmarreck 3y ago
> so if I hadn’t spoken up during deliberation You are not allowed to use your own expertise that is not presented in the trial to inform your decisions. That is by law. Or at least, it was in Massachusetts when I last served on a jury. Which brought me to actual tears, btw, because the eyewitness testimony was being weighed too heavily.
vacuity 3y ago
What is a better alternative?
- csours 3y ago
  Hard to say. The French system is different, and may have better results in some cases. > In France, the Cour d’assises itself was inherited from the French Revolution. Since a law of 1941, it is a mixed jury system, meaning that lay citizens sit together with professional judges https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub/828/ https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub/828/
tonyarkles 3y ago
> In one of my cases the prosecution had an expert witness that stated some totally wrong facts about visibility during sunset. That kind of stuff makes me profoundly uncomfortable. Presumably, too, since the judge doesn't participate in the jury deliberations at all, the (un)credibility of said expert witness never saw the light of day. Did the accused's side raise that possibility during cross-examination at all?