Not the "Hello World" part... but the part about being an expert in a trial
where you take your marching orders from the Lawyers even if you disagree with
them and produce the "testimony" the Lawyers want you to say even if you
disagree with the conclusions.
At least, from the "expert" witnesses we
saw supporting SCOG, that seems to be the case.
And if that really is the
case, it's one core reason I'll likely never be an expert witness for such
litigation tactics:
I won't testify to something that I know is not actually
supported. Too many ethical values!
Perhaps that's how some individuals
get passed their ethical values - assuming they have some - they treat the
situation as a game... after all... it's ok to cheat in games, right? At least
to some individuals it seems to be, even if not to myself.
It really is a
shame - I think - that purgery isn't applied more. It seems the bulk of the
situations are more commonly handled via the process of discrediting the witness
and their testimony. Considering the more common "punishment" witnesses face is
having their testimony discredited, that's a pretty low weighting factor on the
scales when compared with being paid $500 an hour.
Caveat: due to my
lack of wisdom with regards individual behavior and testimony, applying purgery
the moment someone is identified as having offered an opposite testimony to what
they previously applied could very well lead to even greater injustice. So
while I may think it's a shame that purgery isn't applied more often, there is
also certainly enough doubt in my mind that I wouldn't necessarily want my
thought applied in practice.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|