ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 24th May 2020, 06:27 PM   #81
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 44,517
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Agreed, law designed for the average citizen to comply with should not require an interpreter to grok.

But my point was more crude. You want your ass on the line and see Thermal scratching his nutsack in the row of jurors? I'd rather have a professional than the average dolts I find bumbling around.

If you were getting surgery, you want a dozen random people with no experience and a ten minute crash course to try their hand on you? Or might there be something to be said for professionals on matters of import?
Criminal trials are not surgery. Society should not be designed for the criminologists and lawyers. It should not be operated for them. Society is for all the many different kinds of people who will live under its rules. Thermal "Scratchy" McNutsack is in fact the very expert on law and order whose opinion should be heard. In my opinion.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2020, 07:10 PM   #82
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,612
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Criminal trials are not surgery. Society should not be designed for the criminologists and lawyers. It should not be operated for them. Society is for all the many different kinds of people who will live under its rules. Thermal "Scratchy" McNutsack is in fact the very expert on law and order whose opinion should be heard. In my opinion.
We would have little need for lawyers if so, then, yes? An accused should, by virtue of their own expertise, be able to mount their own defense. Sort of a pro se writ large. Why would we even need a judge, except as an MC of sorts?

I dunno. Most people I know don't think in terms of legal/illegal, so much as a more emotionally charged right/wrong, and are subject to far more biases than a (theoretically) professionally detached pro would be.
__________________

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2020, 07:22 PM   #83
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 24,730
There's a huge difference between the general, entire population deciding what the laws should be (good thing) and 12 random yahoos off the street deciding if a crime has been committed (debatable, with arguments on both sides.)
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2020, 07:29 PM   #84
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 66,803
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
My default position is that if twelve citizens off the street can't figure out what the law means and how to interpret it, that's a problem with the law, not with the citizens.

Ideally, criminal law should be immediately scrutable to all citizens.
That would be lovely, but there's a reason that "legalese" exists. The law has to be applicable in all possible circumstances, and it has to be very unambiguous in those circumstances. These two things combined means that the law has to be extremely detailed and the language has to be very precise. Unfortunately these combine to result in language that is highly impenetrable to all but those with specialised training. There isn't really a way around that without introducing ambiguities, which then require further knowledge and training in order to... well, to "judge" fairly.

It's the same with any kind of jargon. Jargon is created from the need to communicate very precisely in a very specific area of expertise, and it results in only those with that expertise being able to understand the language. Eliminate the jargon and you increase comprehension, yes, but at the expense of reducing the precision and conciseness of the communication.
__________________
Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
arthwollipot is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2020, 08:13 PM   #85
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 18,927
My wife had a true crime show on today. It may have been a murder suicide. But after shooting herself in the head, she would have had to moved the gun to under a couch, walk to the bedroom, and lay down. A neurosurgeon correctly ruled that someone shot in the head could conceivably do that. But asking 12 people to evaluate that is such a bizarre request. It almost seems unfair to ask someone to do that.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2020, 09:01 PM   #86
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 11,622
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
My wife had a true crime show on today. It may have been a murder suicide. But after shooting herself in the head, she would have had to moved the gun to under a couch, walk to the bedroom, and lay down. A neurosurgeon correctly ruled that someone shot in the head could conceivably do that. But asking 12 people to evaluate that is such a bizarre request. It almost seems unfair to ask someone to do that.
I distrust experts - the neurosurgeon obviously has a liberal bias.
Has he considered the possibility that the women's ghost might have moved the gun?
__________________
ETTD
Everything Trump Touches Dies
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2020, 09:25 PM   #87
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 6,169
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm not sure it's knowable, what system is more likely to reach a true verdict.

In any case, no system is perfect. You're not going to feed facts through a series of logic gates and get truth out the other side. Opinion, perception, and human judgement are going to be factors no matter what. And even when the facts are known and the guilt is clear, there is still scope for jury nullification, as I previously mentioned.

So my chief concern is for the rights of the citizen. My concern is that when the system fails, and a faulty verdict is reached, the failure tends to be in favor of the citizen, not the state. Thus I favor systems that give the citizen good opportunities to defend his innocence and go free if he can. That said, I also recognize the state's interest in not letting criminals go free.

So in the end I favor systems that seem to reasonably balance the state's interest in not letting criminals go free, with the citizen's interest in not being falsely imprisoned. Of the two errors, I think the second is much worse. Society suffers from criminals who go free on false verdicts, but I think it suffers much more from citizens who are falsely imprisoned by the state. So I think a system which gives the citizen the option of a jury or a judge to decide their case is a good system for safeguarding the citizen against the state, without unduly jeopardizing the state's interest (and the society's interest) in punishing crime.

I must say you have a real flair for muddying up an issue and frustrating those who would like to see clarity prevail.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2020, 10:04 PM   #88
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,284
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Criminal trials are not surgery.
But what is at stake is similar (the life of the patient/accused) and the price of failure can be catastrophic (potential ruining of a person's life all the way to death).

For mine, the biggest problem is not so much the jury system itself as it the post trial, i.e. the diffulty of appeal once convicted. Once a person is convicted the, bar to having that conviction overturned is much higher than being found not guilty in the first place.

A good example is the Scott Watson case in NZ. Just about every witness against him recanted their testimony once it became apparent that the Police misled, and in some cases, outright lied to them. Not only that, but the prosecutors told outright lies during the court proceedings as well. Had those witnesses known then what they know now, they would never have testified to what they did, and the case against Watson would almost certainly have collapsed.

I am an advocate of the of the Scottish three-verdict system, Guilty, Not Guilty, Not Proven. It allows the jury to effectively tell the court that the prosection have not put together a solid case beyond reasonable doubt, but that some doubt about the innocence of the accused still remains.
__________________
"Covid-19 doesn't care whether you are a Republican or a Democrat; its an equal opportunity killer" - Joy Reid

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 24th May 2020 at 10:08 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:48 AM   #89
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 16,280
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
There you go again! You just make up stuff and accuse me of saying it. Try reading what I said and comment on that. I will be more receptive to this approach I promise.
What do you think I am doing?

in response to a suggestion that we could have both (trial by judge or trial by jury) you responded with:
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
I suppose we could also throw in trial by ordeal as an option as well.
And when asked why continued with:
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
I was just illustrating the silliness of your post.

The discussion is about whether trial by jury or by judge is best and you throw in the inane comment that we should have both. Hence my sarcastic response of throwing "trial by ordeal" into the mix.
And yet when I ask why you think this is silly you accuse me of making up stuff and accusing you of saying it.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:58 PM   #90
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 6,169
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
What do you think I am doing?

in response to a suggestion that we could have both (trial by judge or trial by jury) you responded with:

And when asked why continued with:

And yet when I ask why you think this is silly you accuse me of making up stuff and accusing you of saying it.

I think you must be doing this on purpose. Your comprehension cannot be this bad. Christ, at the end of that obvious sarcastic remark I made about throwing in "trial by ordeal" into the mix, I even put the symbol in there! You know what that symbol means do you?
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:02 PM   #91
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 6,169
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Frustrating, isn't it?

You're telling me!

It would seem some are so desperate to have the last word they don't care how silly that word is.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:06 PM   #92
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 6,169
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post

I am an advocate of the of the Scottish three-verdict system, Guilty, Not Guilty, Not Proven. It allows the jury to effectively tell the court that the prosection have not put together a solid case beyond reasonable doubt, but that some doubt about the innocence of the accused still remains.

Never heard of that Scottish thing before so thanks for the info. I think it has some merit also.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:51 PM   #93
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 16,280
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
I think you must be doing this on purpose. Your comprehension cannot be this bad. Christ, at the end of that obvious sarcastic remark I made about throwing in "trial by ordeal" into the mix, I even put the symbol in there! You know what that symbol means do you?
You didn't include a symbol when you stated "I was just illustrating the silliness of your post".
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:22 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.