5 ms·

My father was called for jury duty a few years ago. The case depended on some physics, something about the angles and momentum in a car crash. My father was dis

by dn3500 3y ago

My father was called for jury duty a few years ago. The case depended on some physics, something about the angles and momentum in a car crash. My father was disqualified, because he's a physics teacher and may have been tempted to interpret the physics expert's testimony instead of blindly accepting it.

cbsmith 3y ago
Yup. I don't think the problem is the jury, or even the experts. There's a fundamental problem with how the courts use expert testimony to ensure fair justice. I believe the idea is that to ensure fairness, verdicts should not be determined by variances in expertise amongst the jury. I recall being specifically instructed that I was NOT to question the expert testimony based on any prior expertise I might have. It solves one problem, and creates a ton of others.
- lopis 3y ago
  I can imagine that this is required because the vast majority of people have "opinions" on the experts' field. So many people operate on gut feelings and reject science and fact. So they prefer to blanket ban arguing about the experts statement.
  - cbsmith 3y ago
    The motive is clear, but consequence is that we deliberately choose juries that are fully Dunning-Kreugered. They have to rely on social cues as such to reason about which expert witness is credible... which pretty much undermines the justification for bringing the expertise to court. If you brought in a magician instead, the jury would find them equally credible.
eli 3y ago
Jurors aren't expected to blindly accept expert testimony. Normal jury instructions are exactly the opposite: that jurors should treat it just like any other testimony and make their own decision on how trustworthy it is. I think the concern is more that they don't want a self-appointed expert on the jury having too much sway over the other jurors.
rossant 3y ago
When my son was diagnosed with shaken baby syndrome [1], I investigated the science of this diagnosis and found out horrifying mistakes in French diagnosis guidelines, especially in physics-based arguments. These guidelines were written by medical doctors who did not seem to have the slightest understanding of basic physics, resulting in gross unit conversion errors, absurd comparisons, contradictory reasonings, and so on [2]. These flawed arguments led to flawed conclusions regarding differential diagnoses of pediatric head injuries, resulting in hundreds of erroneous medical diagnoses and allegations of abuse in the country. [1] https://www.cambridgeblog.org/2023/05/a-journey-into-the-shaken-baby-syndrome-abusive-head-trauma-controversy/ https://www.cambridgeblog.org/2023/05/a-journey-into-the-sha... [2] see e.g. https://adikia.fr/2018/05/biomecanique-des-chutes/ https://adikia.fr/2018/05/biomecanique-des-chutes/ (in French)

by dn3500 3y ago

cbsmith 3y ago

Yup. I don't think the problem is the jury, or even the experts. There's a fundamental problem with how the courts use expert testimony to ensure fair justice. I believe the idea is that to ensure fairness, verdicts should not be determined by variances in expertise amongst the jury. I recall being specifically instructed that I was NOT to question the expert testimony based on any prior expertise I might have. It solves one problem, and creates a ton of others.

lopis 3y ago
I can imagine that this is required because the vast majority of people have "opinions" on the experts' field. So many people operate on gut feelings and reject science and fact. So they prefer to blanket ban arguing about the experts statement.
- cbsmith 3y ago
  The motive is clear, but consequence is that we deliberately choose juries that are fully Dunning-Kreugered. They have to rely on social cues as such to reason about which expert witness is credible... which pretty much undermines the justification for bringing the expertise to court. If you brought in a magician instead, the jury would find them equally credible.

eli 3y ago

Jurors aren't expected to blindly accept expert testimony. Normal jury instructions are exactly the opposite: that jurors should treat it just like any other testimony and make their own decision on how trustworthy it is. I think the concern is more that they don't want a self-appointed expert on the jury having too much sway over the other jurors.

rossant 3y ago

When my son was diagnosed with shaken baby syndrome [1], I investigated the science of this diagnosis and found out horrifying mistakes in French diagnosis guidelines, especially in physics-based arguments. These guidelines were written by medical doctors who did not seem to have the slightest understanding of basic physics, resulting in gross unit conversion errors, absurd comparisons, contradictory reasonings, and so on [2]. These flawed arguments led to flawed conclusions regarding differential diagnoses of pediatric head injuries, resulting in hundreds of erroneous medical diagnoses and allegations of abuse in the country. [1] https://www.cambridgeblog.org/2023/05/a-journey-into-the-shaken-baby-syndrome-abusive-head-trauma-controversy/ https://www.cambridgeblog.org/2023/05/a-journey-into-the-sha... [2] see e.g. https://adikia.fr/2018/05/biomecanique-des-chutes/ https://adikia.fr/2018/05/biomecanique-des-chutes/ (in French)