From: Jill bennett gaieski <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 2006/12/07 Thu AM 09:10:37 CST
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Questions of science in the courtroom

Actually, that's not entirely correct.  First, "Courtrooms" are not deciding --
people are.  Judges, who unfortunately are for the most part no more well
versed in the sciences than the average juror, are bestowed with the task of
determining whether a proffered scientifc theory is, under the resurected Fry
standared, "generally accepted." When the issue is in dispute, such as the
causation issue for global warming, a judge will unavoidably need to decide
what the jury will and will not hear (see Justice Scalia's remark to the
lawyers at oral argument, “Troposphere, whatever, I told you before I’m not a
scientist.” And when the issue is before the U.S. Supreme Court the stakes are
even higher.  As Justice Kennedy suggested, "maybe the court will decide to
decide this issue for itself." Good luck to them!

Jill Bennett Gaieski, Esq.
Ph.D. Candidate
Department of Anthropology (Historical Archaeology)
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia




 The courtroom doesn't decide scientific questions it determines wether the
information offered should be presented to jury and/or judge.

     It may reject the evidence even if it has scientific validity.
    Sometimes people confuse justice and the justice system.

     If you want a verdict that fits your idea of what the outcome should be
then the justice system can get in the way.



    Regards
    Bob C.









From: Jill bennett gaieski <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 2006/12/06 Wed PM 09:46:58 CST
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: When Questions of Science Come to a Courtroom, Truth Has Many Faces

A great example of why the courtroom is not the proper forum for resolving
scientific questions.
The most compelling issue for me is whether the outcome, especially if it favors
the appellees (big business), will influence public opinion to the extent we no
longer hold  corporations responsible since the Supreme Court would have
sanctioned the notion that carbon emissions do not bare a "significant" causal
connection to the problem.
Clearly, the standards of proof are not just different, they are apples to
oranges poles apart. Hopefully, the expert testimony incorporated in the record
before the Supreme Court will be overwhelming in favor of the appellants, far
exceeding the "preponderance" standard.

Jill Bennett Gaieski, Esq.
Ph.D. Candidate
Anthropology (Historical Archaeology)
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia



-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 3:04 AM
Subject: When Questions of Science Come to a Courtroom, Truth Has Many Faces

Somewhat tangential, but this is an interesting comparison of scientific vs.
legal standards for evidence:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/science/05law.html


   We can call it judge, jury, courtroom or whatever you want but in the end "it" renders a decision.  

    If the "it" isn't willing to render a decision or hear the arguement then the "they" that were supposed to convince them have presented their case verty well.  We have a process.  As an bystander willing to listen to both sides I hear alot of disagreement and it sounds to me my best bet is with that judge  
even if he decides something I'm not crazy about 


        Regards
        Bob C.