3 ms·
I feel like we need to acknowledge that 12 average jury pool members are probably not the best panel of scientific experts to determine whether a chemical is ca
by justrealist 3y ago
I feel like we need to acknowledge that 12 average jury pool members are probably not the best panel of scientific experts to determine whether a chemical is carcinogenic. Much less calculate the damages involved.
Like at this point it would be more scientific to run a Facebook poll.
Jury trials are a great system for criminal justice but kinda need to admit this is not the same.
- lestertomlin 3y agoThat’s the point. Jury is a bunch of regular people. I think it’s actually pretty cool because otherwise decisions are based on “legal mumbo jumbo” that no “normal” person would ever be able to understand.
- calculatte 3y agoSo the average citizen is a barely-conscious slobbering fool. While Bayer Monstanto, the multibillion dollar organization that knowingly shipped HIV-contaminated blood products somehow deserves your defense? Alarm bells are ringing.
- justrealist 3y agoThe average IQ is 100.
- 1letterunixname 3y ago[George Carlin joke here.] If the defense presented compelling epidemiologist testimony and statistics, it's difficult to bullshit concrete evidence. The jury just had to act as a marginally-adequate bullshit detector. The premise of a pool of disinterested, random individuals settling disputes is occasionally problematic in isolation but superior to duels at dawn, Hatfields vs McCoys, or troubling the corn or pimentos.
- wolverine876 3y ago> it would be more scientific to run a Facebook poll The jurors have spent many, many hours personally hearing testimony and examining evidence, all of which is vetted to meet courtroom standards. Do you consider yourself fit to serve on such a jury?