BBC: Miscarriages of justice by science-ignorant juries

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 17:34:44 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 8:57:06 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 19:06:55 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Until "scientific inquiry" actually provides a definitive answer, juries will have to decide based on what they are told.

Which is a problem in a country that is undereducated, doesn't trust
experts, and generally lacks critical thinking skills.

That would probably describe the lawyers and scientists in this case, more so than any of the jurors.

I doubt this applies to the scientists at all. Could go either way
with the lawyers. And is almost certain with a significant number of
jurors.

Chemicals HAVE been known to increase or cause cancer, so you need to show up with proof that a particular chemical in question does not. Don't blame the jury.

The problem in this case is that good science has already demonstrated
that the risks associated with this particular chemical are very
small, and that the probability that this man's cancer were related to
it are small. So the jury did not base their decision on science, or
on logic, but on emotion. That's not good. So yeah, I do "blame" the
jury. I think cases like this should be handled by special courts.

All kinds of arrogance, biased thinking and circular reasoning going on with you, as usual. But that "special courts" thing is the real howler. You really should read the Constitution sometime.

We already have special courts for handling certain technical legal
matters (e.g. water rights courts). No conflict with the Constitution.