quote:
I used the term "conviction" to mean "the final judgment on a verdict" (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition), and I apologize for using the term so loosely. However, it does appear that its intended meaning was received
Thanks for the honest answer - I appreciate it. The intended meaning was clear enough in context, it was the term itself that I wondered at.
The term "civil conviction" does appear in the law in the UK but it is used in courts martial for what we would call in common speech "civilian convictions." I believe the same usage is common in US Courts Martial.
BTW, the general feeling in Scotland at the time was that OJ was a classical candidate for
not proven. In fact, he still provides a good populist example for those who defend the continued use of the
not proven verdict. It was pretty clear from his trial that the prosecution had not proven their case
beyond reasonable doubt - much of the evidence was pretty compelling, but there was clearly room for at least some doubt, cleverly handled by his defence. Without
not proven the only alternative is inot guilty[/i], which, in this case, also seemed unsatisfactory.
Are traffic violations civil delicts in the US? That's interesting. One thing I have been surprised at over here is how easy people find it to get off with speeding tickets compared to the UK. Not lighter punishments, but actually having the ticket quashed. Given the standard of proof in civil cases is lower than in criminal, you would think that would make it harder to have the ticket quashed, no? The implication is that the police here are not even gathering a preponderance of evidence - that can't reflect well on them!
quote:
Pamboli: Given an arbitrary set of parameters
AaL: Parameters are clearly defined, you'll have to explain your point better
My turn to apologize for being unclear! Arbitrary is perhaps too negative a word, but my point is this: the clear rules by which the legal system operates are imposed
as rules. For example, those who spend time in the criminal or civil courts sooner or later come across situations where evidence cannot be led for technicalities - invalid search warrants, for example. These rules are essential to the justice system, but science is more empirical. The
rules may be repeatability, falsifiability (if you follow Popper), inductive logic and so on, but they are not codified - there is no body which administers them or determines them. Even peer review does not come close to being a legalistic framework for assessing science. There are no bodies to determine what is scientifically valid; and, as Huxley said,
No bell rings when Science has found the truth.
quote:
Pamboli: to the consideration of issues within its purview
AaL: Or, more accurately, the issue presently before the court.
In this case, there was some value in my precise wording, as there is a limit to what can be brought before a court. One of the curious things about asking if a scientific theory could stand up in court is wondering how it would find itself there!
The revolution of the earth around the sun, is not in itself, as a scientific theory, within the purview of a court - at least not in the UK. (Who knows what they could lead in the US!) A court would not sit in judgement of whether the earth revolved around the sun. What may be in the purview of the court could be a case to which the truth or falsity of a theory would be germane.
quote:
Pamboli: with a fundamental bias to the argument from authority.
AaL: What authority?
I believe the system in the US is basically the same as in the UK, that scientific evidence is presented in court by expert witnesses (authorities) whose authority is typically established and relied upon. I believe the US takes this further and has some case law (Daubert) that determines that peer-reviewed journals provide suitably authoritative means of establishing a certain baseline of acceptance for what may be a novel scientific approach. Is this right?
Either way, the court works from the authority of its expert witnesses and does not perform empirical science itself. Having sat through too many civil cases with too much technical evidence led by expert witnesses I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard the phrase
Is it your opinion that ...
™ Version 4.2
