BBC: Miscarriages of justice by science-ignorant juries

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 6:44:15 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 March 2019 07:34:32 UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 9:46:16 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
The average person's knowledge of science or the processes it uses is pitiable. People cry about the innocent being convicted, they even make TV shows about people who try to help them. But what about products? Science-ignorant juries are one the main causes of incorrect outcomes of lawsuits and criminal trials. Good example is Monsanto week killer, Roundup. No evidence at ALL that it is harmful, NONE. Yet a moron jury awards millions to someone who contracted cancer in an age group PRONE to it naturally. I saw an ad for some ambulance-chasing firm assuring asbestos workers that "even if you smoked your whole life, and contracted lung-cancer, you could be entitled to damages!" Disgusting.

The case:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47633086

The science:

https://www.google.com/search?q=non-...2lEa M:&vet=1

The jury would have listened to the evidence that was presented and made their best decision based on it. The defense must not have done as good a job of presenting evidence as they could have.

From my point of view, all herbicides and pesticides are guilty until proven innocent.

Idiot. If not for them, 1/2 the planet would be starving. YOU should have been on that jury, you'd have fit right in.

It wasn't suggested that such chemicals be banned outright, but rather always treated as if they are potentially dangerous. Losing a lawsuit could bring about better packaging, regulations, guidelines and training in application procedures.

If there is a connection between exposure and a disease in agricultural use, a chemical should be banned from all non-agricultural uses, such as around or near commercial, residential and public areas. Having a few weeds around is much preferred over cancer or poisoning.

I wasn't on that jury, neither were you, nor idiot peterson or brown. If you come to the courtroom with your minds already made up, you don't belong on the jury. -I- would listen to and consider the evidence presented, which is what the jury in question seems to have done.

You can apologize or recant your pathetic insult at any time, sooner is better.

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.

On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 7:06:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:

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.

https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/10/09...e-cancer-13490

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 9:00:13 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 7:06:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:

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.

https://www.acsh.org/news/####/##/##...e-cancer-#####

What does that diatribe have to do with,

1) the fact that some chemicals have been known to be carcinogenic,
2) one would need to present evidence that a chemical is or isn't carcinogenic,
3) juries render verdicts based on evidence presented by each side

?

If, as a juror, you walked into a court having already decided what the verdict should be, you do NOT belong on the jury.

I would be an ideal juror, because I am disinterested in the verdicts. You, however, are biased and unfit.

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.