• iltoroargento
    link
    fedilink
    6
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Agreed. Functionally, the laziness of the US justice system incentivizes quick and easy answers and simple findings of fact. Not much inquiry or investigation going on in your average case.

    Additionally, the pool of “experts” consists primarily of people in a field who have already made the choice to sell their services to the highest bidder.

    Now, of course, there are experts who jump into a courtroom because they’ve been righteously incensed by the subject matter at hand or want to make sure that facts and scientific conclusions are presented accurately, but in my experience, every medical “expert” I’ve met is a mercenary.

    Edit: Your point about peers is a very good one, although I don’t see courts expending resources to incentivize or force actual peers to convene for every malpractice dispute. No matter how much I wish they could.

    • @rexxit
      link
      5
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That’s a good way to put it - it’s laziness. Maybe it’s laziness though the burden of history where the structure of the system is cobbled together from hundreds of years of increasingly irrelevant procedures and precedent that can’t be modernized with society. I’m not a legal scholar by any stretch, but the whole thing looks suspect to me.

      I’ve heard from medical experts that appear not to be mercenaries, but my issue is that there’s no way for the legal system to distinguish between a person who takes the job only when they’re on the right side of an issue, and a person who will craft an argument to make their side seem right regardless of the facts. The process all seems very corrupt from the outside. It incentivizes financial conflict of interest.

      • iltoroargento
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        I mean, context matters, I’m mostly talking about the ones employed in a civil litigation context.

        I would say those approached by journalists are less likely to be in on the take.

        • @rexxit
          link
          21 year ago

          That’s what I’m talking about also. Experts who are being paid to express an opinion, but in a circumstance where their peers would hold a consensus opinion that opposes what they are stating in court. Those experts are mercenaries.

          • iltoroargento
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            Just saw this, but yeah, definitely. I just wanted to be clear that I’m not dumping on experts in general lol I think people took offense.

            And I think it’s even more dangerous than that, it’s not just people providing a solitary or fringe supported theory or conclusion.

            Especially with a test like what was described, if you get an expert to put their thumb on the scales of an already pretty cloudy issue, it’s even more effective in a case. If they’re mainly doing that to help line their pockets, they’ll be more likely to play fast and loose with their statements.

      • iltoroargento
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Quite a few. It’s definitely hyperbole, but in civil litigation, it’s hard to get people who are actually doing research/still practicing their craft and have recent knowledge/are the real deal as they feel like they’re better serving their interests by not wasting their time on a court case (which I find pretty hard to disagree with, tbh).

        Edit: added the stuff about recent knowledge as there are definitely good intentioned people who will start doing this kind of work as they wind down their practice or research.