The tobacco cases come to mind.
Just because they happened to make the right choice doesn't make them competent. A broken clock is right twice a day.
So let me get this right...you don’t think a jury can comprehend and understand the facts being presented to them through experts, yet without hearing any facts or experts you can confirm these juries “made the right choice”?
As I said before there will be educated people in this thread who down play a juries ability to make a accurate finding of fact and yet be all to happy to make their own findings without any knowledge of the facts of a given case or expert testimony, just as you did.
Yes. It's possible to make a good decision through a flawed process.
I don't know where you're getting the idea that I endorse autocratic rulers, but it's absurd and borderline inflammatory.
What's the alternative, though?
Perhaps both lawyers could be allowed to negotiate requirements for the jurors (e.g. they must have a technical background, at least half must have college degrees, etc.). Or perhaps each lawyer negotiates requirements for some of the jurors with the judge.
Another approach would be to make changes to the legal system. For example:
Make it illegal for a lawyer to present evidence that they know to be scientifically or technologically unsound or to present a witness that they know to be unqualified.
Make it perjury for an expert witness to knowingly present scientifically unsound statements or to comment on something that they are unqualified for.
Make unsound science valid grounds for overturning or appealing a case.
Require statements to be backed by data that meets statistical requirements.
I'm not a lawyer and I'm sure these wouldn't be a perfect solution, but perhaps they would help.
The issue is, experts genuinely don’t agree on much of anything. Is salt bad for your blood pressure? Many medical doctors would say yes, many would say no. There is almost no subject where you can’t find highly qualified experts that have conflicting opinions.
Some such systems, such as the one in Germany, don't have "jury of your peers," but a panel of professional jurists who act as both judge and jury.
I'm curious why you think it allows for more corruption than the US system. Something I find compelling about the German system is that the primary point is not to decide guilt or innocence of the accused, but to determine the truth. (See https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj/vol34/iss2/5/).
Plea bargaining in the US is, in my opinion, a corrupt practice.
> I'm curious why you think it allows for more corruption than the US system.
I didn't make that claim in the big picture, I was talking specifically about the the role of jurors in terms of evaluating the credibility of expert testimony.
My concern with the idea of "professional jurors" is that they represent an easy target for corruption in the form of coercion, bribery, etc. How can you ensure that a professional juror is actually impartial and fair? If jurors are always coming from the same pool of people, won't they develop relationships with prosecutors and the like that may influence their impartiality?
Panels and government oversight boards are just another easy target for lobbying (in all of its various flavors). As though the US system doesn't have enough of those corruption points in place now. There are an enormous number of jury cases in the US every year however, and bribery is rare.
If you replace traditional juries with expert panels, it's guaranteed that the system will be designed - by those that benefit from all other forms of lobbying - to have holes in it that allow forms of legal lobbying and influence, whether direct or indirect.
I'll take juries of The People in all regards, and without exception, over the extraordinarily dangerous, anti-democratic risks involved in shifting the system toward elitist expert panels. We already have enough of that shit dominating our country as it is. I choose the less perfect system - if that's indeed the choice - that retains power in the people broadly, keeping a critically important piece of the justice system mass-involved - something we're all part of.
I disagree with the outcome of this case and leaving scientific decisions in the hands of people who may not have the cogitative skills to make the best assessments is an issue and would like see a solution. That being said, the moral hazards you point out do appear to be a much larger potential issue and I agree the risks of "expert panels" probably aren't worth it. We need some sort of redress to non biased citizens.
Perhaps civil trials with monetary rewards are a different matter than criminal trials though, not sure. Anyway, your point is good.
It's not clear that they're competent to do this, either.
>If lay people are not equipped to evaluate such credibility, that calls into question the very underpinnings of our policy-making institutions.
Not necessarily. It just calls into question whether the system works well in this class of cases.
>Whenever I have seen an actual jury at work, I have consistently been impressed by the degree to which folks can absorb the information presented at trial.
Have you seen something even remotely comparable to the case being discussed here?