|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 08:40 AM EDT |
The intellectual divide between lawyers and scientists goes
all the way to very basic conceptions of truth and "proof".
And it's not just these professions - most other fields fall
onto one side or the other of this fence. It is all about
whether one looks at an issue as something to be described
objectively, or something to be argued one way or the other.
The "scientific" way is, ideally, to treat everything from
the perspective of a disinterested third party. Scientists
go to great lengths to prevent every possible type of bias
in their observations and interpretations. We do carefully
designed experiments with multiple positive and negative
controls, trying to exclude any factor from influencing the
outcome that is not part of the actual process being
studied. In general, engineers, mathematicians, and often
physicians fall into this camp. In an ideal world, judges,
managers, and civic leaders would also follow these
principles, but such is often not the case.
The "lawyer" view is that truth is something to be decided
by verbal combat. Each side presents its case by attempting
to inject as much bias as possible into the final decision.
Criminal defense lawyers try to get acquittals for
defendants that they know are guilty. Prosecutors try to
convict people who may well be innocent. Trial lawyers seek
damages from defendants who they know full well have done
nothing wrong. The defendant's lawyers try to invalidate
lawsuits that are quite valid. There's a bit of moral
rationalization that goes on, along the lines of "I'm just
representing my client's interests - if he's really guilty,
the jury will convict him and justice will be done". But
that's not what they are really thinking. Lawyers are paid
not just to provide expert representation, but to win,
irrespective of the actual truth of the case.
Even the most ardent defendant of the U.S. legal system must
admit that cases can easily be decided because of better
legal representation on one side or the other, rather than
the merits of the case.
If our legal system were serious about keeping lawyers
honest and ethical, it would forbid the practice of working
for a percentage of the award. ("Call our office now - you
pay NOTHING unless you win!!"). Our current system creates
a business partnership between the plaintiff and his/her
counsel. If we try to argue that lawyers are part of a
system of fair and impartial justice, it is a conflict of
interest to reward them for achieving unjust verdicts.
Advertisers, many business people, and nearly all
politicians fall into this camp, where "truth" is just a
quaint and naive concept, and the object is simply to
manipulate others into acting in a way that benefits you.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
