[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Who would these rape experts be?

I said ALL trials, as the outcomes would probably be more accurate if there was a jury of trained doctors, psychologists, sociologists etc. instead of Greg from Tesco and Samantha from the Chippy.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I said ALL trials, as the outcomes would probably be more accurate if there was a jury of trained doctors, psychologists, sociologists etc. instead of Greg from Tesco and Samantha from the Chippy.

How feasible is it that 12 professionals will be available for every single trial?...
Come on TS get some perspective, and 12 peers whether they work at tesco or the chippy are perfectly capable of making a reasoned decision based on the facts, what kind of a society are you proposing that only doctors and psychologist are capable of making an informed decision based on evidence?

What could these people know that sam and greg don't? they are given the same information :/

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

How feasible is it that 12 professionals will be available for every single trial?...

Not very realistic but that doesn't mean it wouldnt be better.

Come on TS get some perspective, and 12 peers whether they work at tesco or the chippy are perfectly capable of making a reasoned decision based on the facts, what kind of a society are you proposing that only doctors and psychologist are capable of making an informed decision based on evidence?

There are many people in various jobs who are indeed capable. There are also many who lap up tabloid headlines and will be easily swayed by a lawyer's rhetoric. I'm not really interested in playing the "everyone in the world is actually intelligent and rational and how dare anyone suggest otherwise!" game. Some people are thick and easily lead, and they're more likely to have low levels of education or be in menial jobs. Doesn't mean that ALL are, and doesn't mean that ALL doctors etc. are better equipped, but that's why I said "if there was some way to ensure impartiality"

What could these people know that sam and greg don't? they are given the same information :/

Oh come on. Are you suggesting that your hairdresser has the same capacity to evaluate the statements of victims / witnesses / accused as a trained mental health professional or sociologist? What a bizarre thought. Why does anyone bother getting any education at all? That's like asking what your doctor could possibly know that your next door neighbour doesn't because "after all, they have Google!"

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Not very realistic but that doesn't mean it wouldnt be better.



There are many people in various jobs who are indeed capable. There are also many who lap up tabloid headlines and will be easily swayed by a lawyer's rhetoric. I'm not really interested in playing the "everyone in the world is actually intelligent and rational and how dare anyone suggest otherwise!" game. Some people are thick and easily lead, and they're more likely to have low levels of education or be in menial jobs. Doesn't mean that ALL are, and doesn't mean that ALL doctors etc. are better equipped, but that's why I said "if there was some way to ensure impartiality"



Oh come on. Are you suggesting that your hairdresser has the same capacity to evaluate the statements of victims / witnesses / accused as a trained mental health professional or sociologist? What a bizarre thought. Why does anyone bother getting any education at all? That's like asking what your doctor could possibly know that your next door neighbour doesn't because "after all, they have Google!"

Explain to me why it would be better, actually don't bother because in your next highlighted comment you admit that not all doctors would be better equipped... wow that was a quick turn around wasn't it?

This meritocratic system based on academic superiority is flawed, as that is not what a democratic system is based on. I'm not playing any game I agree some people are as thick as lead, they may speak arbitrarily against someone due to their job or the clothes they wear that is true across the spectrum of society.

Yes that's what I'm saying, it's not a bizarre concept.. a jury of peers has been the cornerstone of our criminal justice system for centuries. It wasn't my idea.
People get an education to ensure competency in their specified area of expertise, it doesn't elevate you to consummate guru.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Explain to me why it would be better, actually don't bother because in your next highlighted comment you admit that not all doctors would be better equipped... wow that was a quick turn around wasn't it?

This meritocratic system based on academic superiority is flawed, as that is not what a democratic system is based on. I'm not playing any game I agree some people are as thick as lead, they may speak arbitrarily against someone due to their job or the clothes they wear that is true across the spectrum of society.

Yes that's what I'm saying, it's not a bizarre concept.. a jury of peers has been the cornerstone of our criminal justice system for centuries. It wasn't my idea.
People get an education to ensure competency in their specified area of expertise, it doesn't elevate you to consummate guru.

Which would be fine if I'd suggested "a jury of random peers except they have to have a degree" but that's not what I said at all . It would be a jury of professionals with some insight into the area of each specific case; so for example, doctors, psychiatrists and mental health professionals in a rape case... forensic psychologists and criminologists in a murder trial... economists and business analysts in large fraud cases, systems analysts and web experts in hacking cases, etc. etc.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Which would be fine if I'd suggested "a jury of random peers except they have to have a degree" but that's not what I said at all . It would be a jury of professionals with some insight into the area of each specific case; so for example, doctors, psychiatrists and mental health professionals in a rape case... forensic psychologists and criminologists in a murder trial... economists and business analysts in large fraud cases, systems analysts and web experts in hacking cases, etc. etc.

But this doesn't work for the classist agenda.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Which would be fine if I'd suggested "a jury of random peers except they have to have a degree" but that's not what I said at all . It would be a jury of professionals with some insight into the area of each specific case; so for example, doctors, psychiatrists and mental health professionals in a rape case... forensic psychologists and criminologists in a murder trial... economists and business analysts in large fraud cases, systems analysts and web experts in hacking cases, etc. etc.

What... on a jury, not as an expert witness to give some insight into how the crime was committed?

The extension to all fields encompassing all crimes is a new one, again I don't see how a professional perspective on a case is collective enough to make a decision as to innocence or guilt on.