Slashdot Mirror
Impartial Scientists In The Court Systems
jimmyUCB writes: "It looks like the American justice system may not be utterly doomed after all. This article from Science Daily says that the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is paying scientists and engineers to be impartial tech tutors to judges so they don't have to listen to biased experts that are paid by defendants/plaintiffs. "
Science is not the absolute truth some people think it is. If you ask a scientist what the truth about a subject is, you get his or her opinion. Good scientists acknowlegde this. The bad ones are even unawere of the fact that they are giving their own opinion.
No, people in the jury should be representative of the society in which we live in, so that they make decisions on what is acceptable to them, a section of society, not what is acceptable to one's person's beliefs and opinions due to their education, ie: the judge, or some stuck up bigoted twat who "has been to university".
Metabolism does not a human being make; neither does the oft-cited beating heart. A body stops being a human being under the law when it's brain-dead. A zygote has no brain, nor even any neurons. It can't think, feel, or even sense other than by reacting to chemicals at the cellular level. When you try to claim the label of "human being" for something so insignificant, you demean humanity.
It's simple. We're constructed to throw away most zygotes. I have not heard of a single holy book which says that menstrual periods should be mourned. Obviously God doesn't give a damn about zygotes, so why should we? Why are you venerating the worthless? More to the point, why are you insisting that people who do not share your religious convictions nevertheless follow your rules of conduct? That violates their right to freedom of religion. It becomes a person when it is an independent entity which can think and feel. It stops being a person when it can no longer think and feel (ie. no longer has a functioning brain). What's the problem with that? Estimates were that illegal abortion into the late 60's was about 1.5 million per year. In 1973, Roe vs. Wade threw out most state laws banning abortion. Abortions are now about what, 1.2 million a year? Safety is way up, judging from the 7000 reported deaths (and how many unreported ones?) from illegal abortion from 1946-1972 compared to under 400 from legal abortion between 1973 and 1999 (see this page). Looks like legislation failed pretty miserably.The "pro-life" movement is all about demanding public adherence to one particular ideal of piousness. If that's what you want, you can always go someplace where it's the law of the land; I suggest Afghanistan, or if you don't have the stomach for such required conformity you might try Iran.
--
Knowledge is power
Power corrupts
Study hard
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Both of these statements: You will find the great majority of people interested in ending abortion motivated by the constitution, to which the right to not be killed is fundamental.
You will find the great majority of people interested in maintaining the rights to abortion motivated by the desire for a woman to be able to live her life as she desires.
I partially agree with. Both groups are mostly motivated by their own moral decisions more than legal obligation to the Constitution, IMHO.
But you missed the whole point of my post and replied with a complete sideline. The point of my post was that the Supreme Court protects the enligtened minority from the tyranny of the majority. My example issue was abortion. Obviously, I have an opinion on the issue, and most educated, intelligent people I meet agree with me. And if you listen to the raving luncatic morons who make up a large contingent of Congress, you would rapidly understand my concern that these idiots, elected by people in places like South Carolina, are supposed to protect our interests.
If you are really interested in being ruled by tyranny of the majority, then you must not have had to deal with too many stupid people in your life. The average human is a scary, scary thing to behold.
Article 2 of the constitution specifically grants the power to conduct elections to the states.
I understand your point. You are correct that the purpose of the judicial system is to arbitrate in these manners. But the laws of our country clearly dictated who this should be, one party didn't like the law and used what power they had available to subvert it.
The SCOTUS injected themselves into the process, not because of any legal argument, but because they wanted to make sure their candidate won the election. Only after the fact did they try to construct a legal argument to justify their decision. It was not at all odd then that their justifications it ran contrary to every legal argument they had ever made in the past.
In the dictionary you might want to look up the word Corruption... For that is what took place.
I consider myself a Libertarian too, and I agree that the system by which Justices are appointed to the Supreme Court to be highly distasteful, but given how little I respect the ability of the masses to elect a president and Congress who will represent their own freedom and the common interest, i.e. how anti-Libertarian most of this country seems to be, I am glad that we at least have some rational, well-educated, highly intelligent people up there who debate and consider from a moral and legal viewpoint (they are not bound by strict precedent as the highest court in the land, although they are usually bound by Congressional directive). In other words, without these guys, we'd be even more fucked.
No, people in the jury should be representative of the society in which we live in, so that they make decisions on what is acceptable to them, a section of society, not what is acceptable to one's person's beliefs and opinions due to their education, ie: the judge, or some stuck up bigoted twat who "has been to university".
*sigh* Juries are never going to be representative of society as a whole because a) there aren't enough of them to be a statistically valid sample and b) they're comprised of people too stupid to avoid jury detail. So if anything the average intelligence of a jury is somewhat lower than the mean.
Besides, most people are used to being manipulated by charismatic talkers. After a lifetime of watching such classy television experiances as "When Good Pets Go Bad", "Married With Children" and, God forbid, "Will and Grace" they aren't used to things like rational thinking or logical analysis.
On the other hand, people in more cognitive fields are used to analysing a situation rationally and logically. Just look at the cut and thrust of debate here on /. It's very similar to how a courtroom should be, and by having people in the jury who can cut through bullshit and misdirection we can make sure justice is done correctly.
Jon Erikson, IT guru
Under cross-examination, the lawyers might ask questions that the judge hadn't thought of. It wouldn't invalidate the questions of the judge, but it would simply offer both sides the opportunity to put their own questions to the court appointed expert.
As was mentioned in the release -- Judges (federal judges, at least) have had the right to appoint their own experts since 1993
--
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
"The SCOTUS injected themselves into the process, not because of any legal argument, but because they wanted to make sure their candidate won the election."
Ummm...how exactly did they "inject themselves" into it? The SC can only act on questions that people ask, it can't go out and find things to judge. And the question(s) asked of the SC were the same ones asked in Florida--questions, as I've pointed out, that REQUIRE a federal-level court to decide them.
I didn't like their decision much either, but that doesn't mean I think they are corrupt.
--
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
You misunderstood.
A true scientist doesn't follow his 'views' or 'beliefs', a true scientist follows the scientific method to it's conclusion to the best of his abilities, beliefs be damned.
A scientist who has 'views' isn't practicing good science. The whole point of this move by the AAAS is to defend against these types of scientists by having good ones in there.
Don't bother with the age old argument that science is just another form of "beliefs", it's not.
Sigs are awesome huh?
This is a damn fine idea, but it sure would have been nice to have the judge Kaplan in the DeCSS case. He was so brainwashed by the MPAA, he couldn't have found his ass with both hands, a flashlight and a GPS.
"See, we plan ahead! That way, we never have to do anything now."
How impartial is impartial?
Would the AAAS not be considered to be biased in some states/districts, for example if there were to be a "rights to not be taught evolution" case?
I'm not saying AAAS bods wouldn't be "right" in this case, I'm just saying that they are able to color the situation with their own views as much as anyone else, and hence would not be impartial to the case in hand.
FatPhil
--
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
I'm amazed (and alarmed) that the courts ever started taking the testimony of paid witnesses to begin with. How can you believe the word of anyone who is being paid by one side in a dispute? (Let alone someone who makes their living that way, as many do.)
If scientists or other specialists do in fact have expert knowledge that is needed for the resolution of a case, let the courts serve them a subpoena -- just like they do for real witnesses.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
While many cases would be helped by a judge who understands the issues (particularly in the area of patent infringement), a large percentage of the important cases before the courts rely on very subjective interpretations by judges who will probably never "get it", no matter how well they are re-educated.
The AMA is a good example of an "impartial" scientific organization. But they themselves have a lot of connections with big industry. If you were an individual or a small company with a case against a large medical corporation, would you want put all your faith in an "unbiased" expert witness whose motives may not be completely unbiased?
The notion of using a special master to advise judges on particular technical or legal issues is hardly new. There is substantial case law suggesting that the appointment of a special master is within the sound discretion of the court (which means that the appointment, even over the objection of the parties, is reviewed solely for abuse of discretion).
Still the exercise of discretion generally requires the judge to consider the concerns of the parties. Just because AALS says an expert is unbiased, that representation would be unlikely to suffice. Further, even where there is a special master, each side is likely to produce its own experts, whose credentials and expertise may well impress the factfinder more than the remarks of the special master. The master serves as an aide to, and does not supplant, the judge, in any case.
Astute observers will note that a special master, Lessig, was appointed to advise the judge in U.S. v. Microsoft, although that particular appointment was something of a cause celebre.
When I was summoned for jury duty, I made no effort to avoid it. I wanted to participate and see what it was like. Fortunately, I had the foresight to bring two books with me. I got through the first book and most of the second before one of the trials I got assigned to actualy happened, on the third day. I am not sure I would want to do that again, but only because of the two wasted days. Once I actually got into a trial, I really found it interesting.
Edward Burr
Edward Burr
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
Wooo! meritocracy argument - excellent.
You're both part right. There are certainly people who are not qualified (as rational people) to judge evidence, and there are some who certainly aren't. IQ is not necessarily an indication of this I'll accept. How ESN (hey, screw PC, I think it's a perfectly valid term) does someone need to be before they don't have the right to be part of the running of society? So you need a way of judging the eligibility. I reckon that in the same way that there's a driving test, there ought to be a voting test and a jury test too. I'm not asking for much, merely that the principles involved are understood. A society run by the elite would not be an improvement at all.
Having said that, with the adversarial system most countries use, you can't get biased expert witnesses to put fancy falsities into your case, as they are cross-examinable. As long as the other party or its councel have the required knowledge to shoot down the falsities, then the jury don't need to be good at anything apart from weighing two counter arguments with opposing views. Both councels have the same weapons at hand, and a logical scientist will be as able to get a lawyer in knots as the reverse. Hey, I've seen every episode of Quincy, I know that science wins out in the end!
:-)
FatPhil
--
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
That's the Declaration of Independence.
On the other hand, the Fourteenth Amendment specifically mentions the rights to "life, liberty, and property".
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Think about it for a moment: How many people do you know that have Linux 0.X kernels out there? How many people do you know that have linux 2.X kernels on CD?. If society had a nuclear war today, an archeologist would be far more likely to find a 2.X kernel than a 0.X kernel. That doesn't mean that 0.X doesn't exist.
A proto turtle would be analogous to a Linux 0.X -- interesting, but rare.
<rant> In any case, the 'catastrophists' and 'classical' evolutionists schools are mostly differing on the form of evolution, not the validity of it. Some people may latch onto the former as disproving evolution. In my world -- even though the catastrophist approach is more consistent with biblical view, I don't think that it's necessarily inconsistent with the basic concept of evolution.
I also don't feel that evolution is necessarily inconsistent withThe Bible. The Bible has lots of ambiguity in it. For example, we don't know how long God's first days were. We do know that the earth didn't exist until the second, so it's clear that God's evening and morning have little, if anything, to do with the earth's rotation. </rant>
--
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
"A few atoms won't even light a match" - Dr Jones, 1933
I agree, but the chances of this are small. Recent jury questionares have started asking for level of educations as well as specific areas of experetise. For instance, I have seen a grand jury questionare that asked if you had a degree in law, or a doctor's or nursing degree, and if you did, to recurse yourself from the jury immedately. For myself there are only two ways to think about this: The first being the lawyers invovled didn't want too smart of people involved, or want people that might be sympathetic to one side or the other.
Either way, it is somewhat doubtful that this will happen for several reasons, not the least of which is that in the US it is less than 25% of the population has ever gone to college to receive a degree.
"In a true libertarian government, the judicial system would only have the ability to sentance people accused of crimes, and yet now in this socialist system it's gotten so powerful that they're selecting our president for us."
Leaving aside why you think arguments about a "true libertarian government" apply to the US, let me ask this question: Who do would you rather have selected the president? It simply isn't (and especially, wasn't in this case) possible to be exactly accurate and fair when you are talking about millions and millions of people. When disputes arise (and disputes ALWAYS arise), somebody has to be the final arbiter. In this country, that's the Supreme Court.
Would you rather have left it to the Florida legislature? Or ANY elected official, in or out of Florida? Or perhaps we should have "let the people decide"--of course, we did that once; it was called "election night" and it didn't work the first time around. Maybe we should have broken out the guns and nooses (neece?)? I don't necessarily think the Supreme Court was right, but I DO think it was reasonable.
Any system of government that doesn't provide for the resolution of disputes won't last very long. And some of those disputes will be self-referential, but there's literally no mathematical way around that.
--
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
The issues surrounding scientific evidence have been getting heightened attention for at least ten years in the courts. There are a number of other instances of courts using independent experts to try to get a grip on the scientific truth of a case. In a recent biotech patent case, the judge picked from a list of scientists agreed upon by the parties to get someone to act as a background resource. A panel of court-appointed experts was used in the silicone breast implant litigation.
I expect that the AAAS lists won't be used by judges without input from the parties, just because the parties are the ones who have stuff on the line in the case.
I think that the AAAS's move is a positive one. I would like to think that other scientific, medical, and engineering societies could follow suit. Such lists would help in one significant way -- identifying which experts are willing to work on court cases or not.
This move by the AAAS was made a couple of years ago in response to Supreme Court cases that changed the standards for the acceptance of scientific testimony. Among scientists, the Supreme Court actually has a very high reputation, perhaps in part because of the seriousness that the Court has approached issues relating to scientific evidence.
One thing that will limit the use of such experts by the courts may well be money. Courts do not have a lot of funding to pay for experts. Courts might try ordering the parties to split the cost, but that is not always fair to a little guy who is having a hard enough time getting by in the litigation.
I hope judges will make more use of independent experts, especially in cases like the breast implant case, where large numbers of people's rights regarding their health are potentially dependent on expert opinion. It is more important to get a case right when a million people have a stake than just one.
well, it is called "defending your thesis" for a reason - the judges/jury is supposed to question your conclusions and try to poke holes in your methods. Different disiplines and levels of thesis have different levels of scrutiny, but it is theoretically a partially adversarial process.
Kahuna
...will work for Chick tracts...
FundieLawyer: You say the best explanation, but is it the only explanation?
AAAS Expert: No, merely the one most supported by current data.
FundieLawyer: What about my client's proposition that it's turtles-all-the-way-down? AAAS Expert: That theory does not appear to be supported by evidence. FundieLawyer: But if evidence were to be found, it would then be a theory supported by evidence, no? AAAS Expert: Yes, it would be, if someone looked over the edge of the earth and saw a giant turtle. FundieLawyer: So you admit it! You admit not only that evolution isn't the only possible explanation, but because my client has a sworn deposition saying that he teaches Turtle Theory on the basis of a paper by a Dr. Xyzzy Fromitz, and Dr. Xyzzy's paper clearly states that he's seen a giant turtle, upon whose back the earth rides! The prosecution rests!
Impartial scientific experts are a good thing.
Better, would be a course in epistemology and philosophy of science for any law student or judge who would rule in a case in which science mattered.
Since you can't do that during a case, you'd have to make it part of the standards for becoming a lawyer or judge in the first place.
For example there are many social theories that have not had any solid scientific proof except in the harse world of politics. And even there it would be questionable. One example of this would be marxism, which since most of those systems have fallen, can be said to be a flawed system. This can hardly be taken as scientific proof.
Another example is in the field of mental health where despite billions of dollars of goverment funding, we hardly have a better society because of it. In fact, there have been dozens if not hundreds of schools of mental practice since WWII, but not much in terms of real social advance. The things touted as major advances often lead to things like Hellmouth. And there is not much that could stand up to the standards of proof demanded by hard Science. Referances include respected people such as Thomas Sasz(?) and others.
The real problem is when the hard or soft science is biased because of political agendas, which is what this program is supposed to counteract. I think that there will be some commontion caused by all of this.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Juries are more of a study in manipulative group psychology than in any honest judgement of what's right or wrong. After reading a bit on the subject (I'm minoring in psych at the moment), I'm truly frightened that one day such a group of people might judge me or a friend.
People tend to be so confident of their ability to see into others that they fail to realize they are being driven to a particular verdict -- even when they KNOW the lawyers are trying to do this. Most people think they can tell when someone else is lying, but this is almost never the case, and certainly not a reliable basis for judging someone's guilt or innocence.
In short, juries are seriously flawed, at least as they are presently implemented. Better than an arbitrary decision by a judge, perhaps -- but at least a judge is trained in the field and *usually* doesn't have a strong bias one way or another.
-John
True scientists aren't biased...
Hoo hoo! Ha ha! Hee hee! That's a good one! That statement is incorrect in so many ways that it boggles the mind. How about:
Scientists are by definition human (on Earth anyway) and so are biased, by definition. The perfect human has not yet been invented. :-)
In practice, it is actually much worse than that, given that modern science can be very political in the quest for funding dollars and research grants.
The people who are most knowledgeable about a given scientific subject have much at stake (professional reputation, the aforementioned research dollars) in propounding or repudiating a particular view on that subject. It's possible that the most knowledgable person may be the least objective, especially in a confrontational legal setting where their own work may be called into question.
I could go on, but I think I've made the point...
But, as the article clearly states:
As long as they have that right, it makes sense to give them an opportunity to take good advantage of it by finding competent scientific advisors- which is all that the system does. Nobody is forcing the justice system to bring them in, either, so the judge will only call one in when he thinks that it's warranted. Besides, it's not as though the judges and juries have to take the scientists' words as gospel just because they're not being hired by one side or the other. They'll still be required to judge the scientists' opinions and credibility the same way that they would any other witness. If the scientist has an obvious bias, his testimony can be discounted the same way that any other biased witness's testimony would be discounted.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
If you expect jurors to be experts in the field in which the alleged crime took place, then you are by definition introducing prejudices into the process. If you stack a jury in an MP3 copyright-infringement case with Slashdot readers, you're only looking at one side of the coin.
Also, remember that in countries like Canada, defendents get to choose between trial by judge or jury, so it's not really possible to say judges only fill one role.
---
Is anyone else reminded of the concept of an 'impartial observer' from that sci-fi book about a child who was raised by martians. Sorry, can't remember the name of the book, but it was also the first time I heard the term 'grok'.
In this novel, specially trained people donned a white cloak and instantly became observers. While wearing the cloak, they could only report on exactly what they heard or saw without any interpretation or extrapolation. Their status as an observer held special legal status much like a notary public, and they could be used for much of the same functions, ie. providing witness to the signing of a contract.
I see this as a good idea, IFF the advisors are given strict training in how to be impartial, and that their status an advisor is maintained by stringent rules. An understanding would develope that status as an advisor would be a position of honor, and the honor of the position would be soiled by any misconduct that would reflect on the advisors as a group. The advisors would police themselves to maintain that honor. If they did not do a good job, they would not be believable (and therefore not used) in court.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
OTOH, most court cases aren't going to involve extremely contentious issues that are hot ongoing research topics. Instead they're going to pit one side that actually has the weight of generally accepted scientific though behind it and one side that's dug up the one scientist in a thousand who has a wacked out alternate theory. The problem is that the average judge or juror isn't going to be able to tell the two apart based only on the testimony of the two sides' witnesses. Each of them is going to present himself as the more reliable party and without an unbiased third party to help decide the issue it's likely to be a tossup. Heck, in many cases it's worse than that because the guy supporting the wacko view is a professional witness who has lots of experience convincing juries while the guy supporting the real science is a practicing scientist who's only used to talking to other scientists.
Actually, in some cases it's worse than that. My boss was an expert witness in the OJ civil trial, testifying about the mass spectrometry evidence of EDTA contamination in the blood samples. I can't see how any practicing scientist could possibly have concluded that the samples were contaminated based on the evidence they had (the alleged EDTA was a background peak, while it should have stood out like a sore thumb) but the defense dug up somebody who was willing to testify that they were. I'm sure that money changing hands had a lot to do with it. A third scientist who reached his conclusion based on the evidence instead of how much money was going into his research budget (my boss at least took his fee as a donation to his research, not for his personal use) would have been much more reliable.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
It doesn't say much more than the Science Daily article, but it has a whole slew of interesting-looking links on it.
--
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
It's not just tech-savvy. Judges also need to have substantial comprehension of a complex body of law, and its underlying policies. This is generally true of all areas, but most District Court and virutally all state court judges (outside of the Northern District of California, the Rocket Docket of Virginia and perhaps the Southern District of New York) have precious little understanding of the law. In practice, all they will have seen before making substantive decisions is a few 30-50 page briefs and perhaps some oral arguments regarding the same.
In the U.K., there are special trial courts for patent actions (although they use the same appellate courts). In the U.S., it is exactly the opposite, general trial courts and a specialized appellate bench.
As to providing "minimum educations" for a jury, that specific requirement, even of a literacy test, has been held unconstitutional.
I hope you didn't mean American judges in that post. You have it completly wrong.
But, primarily it is to determine which laws, if any, may have been broken.
The judges role in any case (criminal or civil) is to make sure the trial follows the courts procedures. It's not his/her job to decide what laws a defendant has broken, or what civil action they are liable for; that privaledge is given to the people, represented by the district attorneys or (in a civil case) the party that are enacting the law suit (respectively). In a criminal case it's the Judge's job to hand out an appropriate sentence if a guilty verdict is reached. In a civil case the judge might instruct the jury as to what the law says they can award to the litigant they side with.
"Me Ted"
BOSTON SUCKS!
Oh well, we'll have to agree to disagree.
BTW, There is no point bashing porn or geeks, you sound like a politician who wants to be seen as "the pillar of the community", but in the privacy of his home, enyoys those things he "finds" morally wrong like wife-swapping or boning younger men.
What happens when someone sues the AAAS, and they need an expert witness? :-)
I'm not a loonitarian, but...
Actually it was up to the Supreme Court in Florida to interpret the election laws down there in the most fair way.
I don't think it's at all reasonable for a party to go around advocating state's rights and constructionist interpretation of the Constitution, and then throw that all to the wind when it's inconvenient for their political power plays.
Sorry, the mechanism for deciding disputes was in place... The Republicans just didn't like the decision that was made.
I will not grant that this is a better system.
If you are any good at your field, you are
likely to have an opinion. When you have an
opinion, it is very hard to give a a truly
balanced critique / overview of a topic.
If you have just one person acting as an
interpreter, you have a significant chance of
getting a person who has one bias.
In the current system, you have one side bringing
up their 'experts' who will have a guaranteed bias,
however, you will have on the other side 'experts'
that will have a guaranteed bias to the other
extreme. It is better to have two known biases
offsetting each other, than one bias that has
no balance.
And besides, who will decide who is qualified to
have an expert 'unbiased' opinion. And who will
decide who will decide? etc.
-CrackElf
"Blake is an idealist, Jenna. He cannot afford to think." - Kerr Avon, Star One, Blakes 7
The judicial system protects those of us interested in liberty from those of us who aren't who seem to often make their way into the legislative and executive branches. A woman's Right to Choose would not exist if the Supreme Court weren't there to protect it. Why? There are lots of stupid, vocal Southern social conservatives in Congress. These people, who are as far from Libertarian as you can imagine, want things like creationism taught in schools and they want to return women to the kitchen and the bedroom.
You do people on both sides of an important issue a great disservice when you attempt to misrepresent an important issue like abortion.
You will find the great majority of people interested in ending abortion motivated by the constitution, to which the right to not be killed is fundamental.
You will find the great majority of people interested in maintaining the rights to abortion motivated by the desire for a woman to be able to live her life as she desires.
The real question here has to be to determine at which point a life actually begins, and at which point an individual is protected by the constitution. It is an important question, and one that can be tricky to answer when the stakes are so high.
But taking the views of an extremely small and vocal minority, and trying to paint about 50% of the population with that brush, only serves to divide and inflame people while demonstrating your ignorance.
Sorry if this sounds a little harsh... but I think this is too important an issue to be trivialized and misrepresented, no matter which side you are on.
Bill
(eliminating my +1 bonus because this is way off topic)...
Mathematically impossible requirements are technically not against policy.
You've got to love that term, sheeple, that a significant minority of Libertarians use to refer to all Non-Libertarians. Every time I hear that word, I hear, "I hate you and what you think, and think that your priorities are misbegotten. Vote for my party anyway, you freedom-hating slave!" No wonder these people got tromped by every other political party. You can't be on a Libertarian mailing list for more than a week without learning about the average Libertarian's total contempt for humanity in general and all Non-Libertarians (sheeple) in specific.
My association with these arrogant, self-righteous fools ended with the Harry Browne campaign - my campaign donations will go elsewhere. How do they ever expect to win an election when they can not hide thier contempt for anyone and everyone who do not think like they do? It doesn't matter if you're right if your mere attitude makes people hate you the second you open your mouth!
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
...that the judges didn't choose the Fox Networks "scientific correspondents"
I've been with companies that have been involved in court before over technical issues, and it's not pretty! Because when it comes to matters of technical intellectual property, most people even in the field would have difficulty deciding which way to go, and that's when they can understand the arguments...
I think what we need is to ensure that for tech cases that the judge is technically qualified, otherwise it all comes down to whichever side can put foward the slickest presentation of why they are "right". That's exactly what happened to one company I worked for, and it caused them to go bankrupt in the end.
But perhaps we need to take it further and ensure that in all cases juries are at least familiar with technical issues. Foresnic evidence and statistical analysis of such is now an important part of many criminal investigations, and there are numerous studies showing how unreliable witeness evidence is. But most people just blindly accept eyewitness accounts, which has led to any number of miscarraiges of justice.
I think we need to ensure that people serving in the jury have a minimum of education to ensure that they can weight the evidence in a rational manner. This would ensure that the facts are the most important part of the case, rather than the words of a fancy lawyer. In the end, this can only led more a more just court system.
Jon Erikson, IT guru
About 2/3 of all zygotes die naturally before birth under the best of circumstances; the average death rate has been estimated to be 3/4. I do not consider a unicellular lifeform with odds that poor to be a human being by any stretch of the imagination. It may someday become one (and achieve the status of "a citizen born or naturalized"), but potential is not actuality.
The easiest way out of this is to mind your own business. The people who agree with you will do things your way. The people who disagree with you will do things their way. If you feel you have to tell other people how to deal with some of the most important issues which will ever face them, you deserve to be told to fsck off.
--
Knowledge is power
Power corrupts
Study hard
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
You realize that this is just another load of crap the government is dumping on us. The judical system has far more authority now than specified in the Constitution, and you sheeple just keep bleeting away and giving them more and more.
In a true libertarian government, the judicial system would only have the ability to sentance people accused of crimes, and yet now in this socialist system it's gotten so powerful that they're selecting our president for us.
I see my fellow libertarians on this site, and I see them rail against the evils of patents, drug laws, and outragious atrocities to American sovreignity like the UN, but they don't seem to realize that there's another tenticle of this horrible beast wrapped around the very system of justice we hold so much faith in.
I can only hope that people start to realize this, and no longer accept the false authority of those who would rule us in black robes.
--
Feminism is the wild notion that women are human beings.
"The judges don't use this authority to appoint experts, and one reason they don't is that they don't know where to go for the expertise," Runkle says. "We think they will feel comfortable coming to us because they can say they are going to an organization with tremendous prestige and no vested interest in the outcome of a given case."
No invested interest - is this so? How are AAAS members selected? What do we know about their expertise or their interests? AAAS gets so much power since they will be trusted by judges and judges will rely on AAAS members' opinions. Who will control AAAS?
Of-course there is a need for such organization, I am just wondering how will it be monitored and supervised to provide really educated and impartial views.
You can't handle the truth.
read the quoted part that I was responding to again. that was my point. That by focusing only on winning, the lawyer is not part of a "truth finding" system at all. If the job of a lawyer is to be part of a system to find the truth, a lawer that always wins, regardless of true guilt or innocence is a bad lawyer. If he is a good lawyer, then our court system is not there to find the truth, but to act as a slightly more civilized trial by combat.
Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
It would also be nice to get Mathematicians (Computer Scientists are "Mathematicians", not "Scientists"... history landed the field with a bad name). Scientists don't cover all of the new tech cases, and expert mathematicians are also needed.
Any good mathematician could describe to a judge how an algorithm is nothing more than a mathematical proof (see Curry-Howard isomorphism for a starter) with cut-elimination as the actual computation/processing, and digital data is nothing more than a natural number written in base 2 (see any good "intro computation theory" book). Therefore protecting all computer programs and data under first amendment rights which already protect mathematical things such as proofs and numbers. Now, if the law wanted to limit mathematical things based on the formalisms they are written in, such as writting your proofs in C++ or some other conventional programming language is not allowed protection, well, that would be completely arbitrary law, seeing as two seemingly different formalisms can represent the same mathematical thing and Godel's incompleteness proof showed how their can be no universal mathematical formalism. Such laws would literally choke the freedom of mathematical expression.
DeCSS, nothing more than a proof coupled with a nice big number. How can the law forbid formal mathematical proofs and numbers? Is mathematics limited based on formalism?
But does it work? And do most people think its even supposed to?
Let me ask you a question : If you have a defense lawyer, assigned his clients at random, and he wins every single case - never even plea bargins, just always wins an aquital - is he a good lawyer? Most people I've asked this question say yes imediately. Most are confused on how there could be any question. But if you look at real adversarial truth processes, its different.
If you had a professor assigned to thesis jurys that in every case he was there the thesis defense failed - no one ever got their thesis with him on the jury asking questions - would he be a good jury member? If you had a Defender of the Faith (formerly known as the Devil's Advocate) who presents an adversarial point of view when cannonizing saints, and not one person is made a saint during his tenure, is he a good defender of the faith? In these cases, most would say no - the point of the system is to weed out those truely unworthy, not to stage gladitorial fights between champions and praise the one that always wins. But we are saying the opposite when we praise a lawyer that always wins.
In theory, the adversarial justice system is there to find the truth. In practice, it seems to work to determine the truth. It's trial by combat - if Lancelot prevails, the queen's honor is intact, and the facts be damned. The idea that Lancelot would take a dive to make sure that the truth of combat occasionaly matches the facts is sacrilige.
Do I have a better solution? Incremental reforms perhaps, and having impartial scientific testimony is a great start, but it doesn't do to have no defense, unless you've finally bioengeneered a true philosopher-king. In the real world, we're likely stuck with the adversarial system, but that doesn't mean that we have to ignore its flaws, and the fact that it often isn't even trying to "get at the truth" is a pretty big one.
Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
The point is that everybody has an opinion about tech and how it should be taugh and what is right and not. What is to stop these 'paid' scientists from teaching their biased opinion? Furthermore what is to stop them from being bribed to teach a biased opinion?
Unless they are talking about teaching judges concepts in programming and such I see problems ahead.
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Only 'flamers' flame!
This doesn't come as a surprise at all. Law is a knowledge-based industry, just like information technology. I would think any wise judge knows his own limits and welcomes impartial outside expert opinions. Just as a programmer couldn't possibly have the same depth of understanding of the law as a judge, so too a judge must be able to recognize when he's over his head in technical jargon. A very common practise, but it's still re-assuring to see that it's working.
---
You raise a good point. Furthermore, the whole premise of the American judicial system is that that the adversary system is the best way to get at the truth. Both sides throw up their best arguments and the fact-finder decides who is right.
Law is a funny thing. The judge has many roles to play in the courtroom. But, primarily it is to determine which laws, if any, may have been broken. The judge then instructs the Jury what conditions must be met to find the defendant guilty. In an ideal world, there is no need for the judge to be familiar with the business related to the case. As an analogy, one does not need to be able to play golf to be able to determine which rules may be broken.
Although making the judge more knowledgable in the technology field is of some benefit, the important part is the Jury. The jury is meant to be your peers. It is my belief that jury should be golfers if the crime involved golf, and they should be technologists if the crime involved technology, etc.
As always, it is difficult to select an impartial jury, but that is true for any case.
just my thoughts...
.. if only.
AAAS currently supplies technical fellows to the Executive branch and the Legislative branch. I am quite friendly with several of the fellows as my SO is here in Washington, D.C. on a fellowship.
More information about the fellowships is availible here.
If you have a Doctorate (or a Master's in Engineering) you should apply for one. You really get to influence public policy.
The Economics of Website Security
As a quite young man sits at the defendent's table waiting for the trial to begin, a representative from the AAAS hurriedly pushes past the flock of reporters to bring in their appointed expert witness.
/\r3 1337!!!!!
Judge: Is this our expert witness?
AAAS: It is, your honor.
Judge: Please approach the bench, and state your name, for the court's records.
Expert Witness: 1 0w(\)z Jo0! (v)y Hax0r 5Ty]_3z
Judge: Umm... court reporter, did you, uh, did you get that?... Court Reporter?
Court Reporter: (looking at stenographic machine) Umm.... I don't think I have a "]_" on this thing. You know what? I'll just use a pen.
Check out my diary.
Too easy, man. Troll city...
Evidence pointing away from evolution?! There's arguments about _how_ it happens, but the only argument about _whether_ it happens is coming from the religious side, who'd rather believe 3000-year old folk myths. AFAIK, in every conflict between religion and science, religion has come off second-best after a lot of screaming and kicking of feet (and, incidentally, killing ppl).
Anyway, the only fossils we see are those which (a) die in a muddy environment, (b) that mud has to be the right kind to preserve it, (c) that muddy environment gets turned into rocks, (d) those rocks end up somewhere we can see. If the proto-turtle lived in a place with acidic soil, no fossils will exist bcos the remains will have long since dissolved, or if it lived in somewhere which is now the middle of Siberia, there may be millions of fossils but we'll never see them.
In addition, the more common the animal was, the longer its species survived, and the wider the area the species covered, the more likely we are to find it. As an example, during the Industrial Revolution in the UK, evolution favoured black moths in a sooty environment, so within a few years most moths were black, but when industry cleaned up a bit more, the moths changed back to more natural colours. No-one is EVER likely to find a fossilised black moth, since they existed for such a short time-span in such a small area.
Grab.
bribery is illegal. The lawyer could be disbarred, the case ruled a mistrial and the side that bribed the witness screwed. While possible it is hugely less likely than lawyers introducing bias into the experts they have legally hired.
"hey, there's a tiny chance of a problem with this system! we better stick with the one that we know the problem exists in at hight levels!" Thats real bright.
Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
Eyes are a great example of evolution in action, TOT. There's all sorts of types of eyes around. Worms have very simple light-sensitive cells on their body - these are your "proto-eyes". They'll let it determine orientation and relative light and shade, best guess is so that it knows how at risk it is on the surface (all fishermen know that the best time to dig for worms is at night or early in the morning, when they're near the surface). Other invertebrates (eg. hydras) have better eyes, which allow them to act as filter feeders - their "eyes" aren't much, but are sufficiently fast at seeing light and dark to determine that there's something close in front of them, so they can try and grab it.
Scale up, and up, and up. Each time an improvement occurs, it opens up a new area of specialisation. Insects (usually prey) have developed lots of low-resolution eyes for good all-round vision and threat detection, and that trades of accuracy of vision against view angle. Lizards and mammals (generally predators, or at least opportunistic omnivores) developed 2 good eyes which give better forward vision but a big blank spot behind. When lizards died out and mammals started filling their niches, some mammals became herbivores (and hence prey). They developed eyes more on the side of their heads with a wider field of view, trading off forward perception against threat detection again.
In eyes, humans (and mammals in general) are far from the peak - birds such as eagles can see vast distances with pin-point accuracy, which allows them to fly high and scan the ground from a height. If you can still see your prey from a height, then you may as well stay high whilst hunting bcos you can see more ground. So flying high for long periods makes soaring a naturally effective strategy for hunting larger ground creatures (eg. rabbits), which makes birds with wide-spread wings more effective (eg. eagles and buzzards). For hunting other birds, a swept-back wing gives greater speed and manoevrability for diving on them (eg. falcons). And so on, and so on. The basic improvement in eyes allowed a hunting strategy of staying high and diving on things; different wing shapes made them better at hunting specific types of prey.
Grab.