3 ms·
Playing devil's advocate, but telling a jury information as if you are an expert when you are not is something to be careful of. Not saying you need credential
by toasted-subs 3y ago
Playing devil's advocate, but telling a jury information as if you are an expert when you are not is something to be careful of.
Not saying you need credentials but it's difficult for outside disciplines to know if somebody knows what they are talking about.
- sbuttgereit 3y agoYes, and having credentials is no guarantee that you know what you're talking about. The licensure boards themselves will sometimes warn you that a licensee's credential is in no way a guarantee of any sort of quality and you need to apply your own judgement in assessing the person's qualifications. This makes sense... At the end of the day all the licensure boards can really tell you is if they licensee passed a test and if they've had a history of complaints.
- toasted-subs 3y agoYup, I've had doctors prescribed medications which caused issues. When I looked into it myself there was publication after publication of people taking the medication and having the exact problems I had. Scary as fuck, especially when one doctor threatened to lock me up if I wouldn't take them. Sick and disgusting behavior.
- ajb 3y agoI get your point, but an expert witness in a trial is not usually solely relied on. Normally the other side also has an expert (as was the case here) and the opposing lawyer has the opportunity to question an expert about such things as whether they are licensed. However it's true that there are cases where such an expert might be solely relied on, for example they might be brought in by the judge. That happens in family court here, where a judge might appoint a neutral expert to evaluate a child's situation, and indeed there have been complaints that such experts were not sufficiently qualified or regulated. In that case, I would agree that licensing is desirable.