Former Home of Witness for Derrick Chauvin Defense Smeared With Pig's Blood

[CM156]

I'm not disagreeing with your assessment of law, but on a more abstract level I find it quite fascinating that court cases can effectively involve aspects of scientific evidence assessed by hopelessly inappropriate means.

Imagine if the process of academic science publishing were not peer review, but two scientists with differing studies making a case to 12 non-experts, and the one that got published was the one that got the most votes.

That is a good point, but I don't think you can apply the rigors of peer review to court. Mostly because law is not a science. I'm not trying to criticize your response.
Also it's not a majority vote. Unlike the UK, we don't allow minority verdicts in felony cases (see Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___ (2020)). Not trying to be pedantic, just add some clarification.

Also, worth noting that there has to be some qualification for the expert, which is something the other side can (and frequently does) contest.

Very much so.

It's pretty fundamental to an adversarial system.

 

[Agema]

That is a good point, but I don't think you can apply the rigors of peer review to court.

Indeed not. I just think it is an interesting point. There have been cases in the UK where a court has effectively answered a scientific issue with a ruling, when the scientific process would not come to the same conclusion.

 

[CM156]

There have been cases in the UK where a court has effectively answered a scientific issue with a ruling, when the scientific process would not come to the same conclusion.

I was not aware of that. Do you happen to have a citation? I ask because I would like to read into it more.

 

[Agema]

I was not aware of that. Do you happen to have a citation? I ask because I would like to read into it more.

I am afraid not. I am dredging up a 10+ year old memory of a comment and analysis piece someone wrote, which I think was inspired by an advertising standards case although it mentioned other examples.

 

[CM156]

I am afraid not. I am dredging up a 10+ year old memory of a comment and analysis piece someone wrote, which I think was inspired by an advertising standards case although it mentioned other examples.

Ah, thanks though. I enjoy reading about English law

 

[Specter Von Baren]

No it is not "only fair" to retaliate against a witness for what they said on the stand. It is never okay. You completely undermine the notion of a fair trial if you create a society in which defense witnesses fear for their wellbeing.


The content of his testimony is not relevant to the fact that witness intimidation is not okay. Never has been, and never will be.

Dude. You're talking with a communist. Communists have zero problem with show trials based on making those involved scared for their lives.

 

[Gergar12]

 

[Seanchaidh]

Your (justified) frustration with law enforcement does not mean the moral rules change, nor does it mean our adversarial system of law is wrong.

The police treat communities as permanent adversaries that must be controlled and occupied with military force. In the vast majority of cases there is no adversarial system of law that is stopping them. There are no (relevant) moral rules standing in the way of overthrowing that tyranny.