|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 05:54 PM EDT |
There can be questions of conflict of
interest...eg...doctors will tend to vote against
malpractice cases because they understand that, while under
pressure, occasional mistakes are made and people die.
That's a real bias.
I'd also rather not have police officers weighing in on
police misconduct.
There can also be differences in perspective...
Eg., a relative (chemist) was called to a jury deciding an
abestos-related lawsuit...
L: Any opinions about the case?
R: Sure. Bloke should have known.
L: But, the company didn't warn its workers.
R: That's no excuse. I knew about abestos and lung cancer
ages ago. Besides, that sort of chemical exposure is just
par for the course. Have you ever looked at the life
expectancy for chemists??
J: ...bye.
(That relative is still annoyed about chemical exposure
lawsuits.)
--Erwin[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tufty on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 05:57 PM EDT |
A jury of doctors may take the 'but for the grace' way and protect the doctor. A
jury of patients may take a differing view. How on earth do you get a balanced
view. On a highly technical case maybe there is a need for some sort of
technical review that the jury can turn to but then again isn't that what the
lawyers are supposed to provide.
---
Linux powered squirrel.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
