3 ms·
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.
by 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 agoI 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 agoThe 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.