Carrying out their duties in a way they would want their jury to if they were behind the defendants table does not mean siding with the defendant.

__________________
January 21, 2013: The End of an ERROR.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself."
---Benjamin Franklin

But it not completely objective. And objectivity is the goal.

__________________

Would that be a bad idea? The only formally recognized legal "specialist" (AFAIK) is the Patent and Trademark Attorney, who must have a college degree in the field of invention he wishes to specialise in.

Seems to me it would solve two problems. People bitching about outlandish jury awards and people counter bitching about having no practical redress for real medical grievances.

It's nonsense, what makes us all think that 12 people with mostly zero training and qualifications in anything outside of their own narrow field have some sort of magical grasp of truth just because we can compel them to sit in a jury box all day and then take out their aggressions on whatever poor fucker they are sitting in judgement on? Shit, trial by combat would be better, at least the wrongly accused would get a chance to die fighting.

Judges aren't that easy to corrupt. It can be done but it's surprisingly difficult. The kind of person who wants that kind of job bad enough to get all the qualifications isn't the kind who's easily swayed by bribery or other things

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

Given the history of the 'Brotherhood of Silence', the fact that MDs stick together right or wrong, yes, that would be a problem. I went to law school with some of these MDs and their agenda is to benefit themselves NOT, those they have maimed or the families of those they killled.

__________________

It's bad enough that in Louisiana when a malpractice suit is filed, it goes before a medical review panel who decides if there's a case. I damn sure wouldn't want a jury of doctors to decide the case once it went to court. Another sad thing about Louisiana is that there's a $500,000 cap for malpractice suits, regardless of the number of doctors, nurses and medical facilities involved which means they can kill a patient and after attorney fees, the plaintiff may walk with a little more than half of that amount.

__________________






"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

The MD/Judge is a very real agenda with the AMA. They are laying the groundwork. I noticed how many MDs there were in law school. But I didn't know what it was all about until my last year there when one of the profs went to a conference and came back telling the class about it. Had it not been for him, NO ONE would have known, and I think it went over a lot of heads. Most people who don't have an inside track or who have not had a claim see this as a very reasonable move. It is not.

This is kept very quiet. I look for information about it periodically but never find anything. All I ever heard was from that prof and of course, the notice I had of MDs in law school.

__________________

They're just trying to cover their asses and if it ever happens, we only think malpractice suits are hard to win now! You're right though, people who don't truly understand the ramifications will support such a move while those in the know will try to block it. Unfortunately, it'll probably turn out that 'those in the know' will lose.

__________________






"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

They are keeping it SO quiet that there will be no chance to block it. I can't find anything about it when I look. But there were 2 or 3 MDs in every class. There were 2 in mine. And that's just one obscure little school. Once they have enough people 'qualified' to be on the 'panel' or an MD/judge or whatever they will call it, they will make their move.

The one thing I hang onto is that the legal community is self governed. I certainly hope they don't allow MDs to move in and take over ANY area of it.

__________________

I understand that malpractice insurance is high and I know that people will sue at the drop of a hat but there are REAL malpractice suits out there and it would be a disgrace to stack the court system even more against the plaintiff. Doctors, nurses, CNA's, etc. are going to make mistakes but if those mistakes are covered by other medical professionals, then who is going to hold them accountable? We can only hope that the 'panel' would be truly ethical and non-partial but I doubt that will be reality.

__________________






"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

I doubt that also. I trust them about as far as I can throw a piano with my little finger.

__________________

Not necessarily. A death penalty can still exist but be permitted only upon a higher evidentiary standard than just to convict for a crime itself.

And IMO, it ought to do so. Whilst the standard is supposed to be 'beyond a reasonable doubt' for a conviction, the way that is determined leaves all sorts of room for jury and judge errors whenever one or the other is sitting as the fact finder. I find that to especially be the case when it comes to cop testimony (and certainly with judges sitting as the fact finder). It's also a problem when there are eyewitnesses in high excitement circumstances and with 'dirty witnesses' when the case involves a shady scenario in the outset.

Courts have long and repeatedly held that convictions 'beyond a reasonable doubt' can be proven by the juries or judges simply believing whomever in a trial. That process, however, is rank with biases and good faith errors where the credibility calls wind up being determined by betting on the wrong horse(s). And on top of that, courts have repeatedly held that convictions can be issued and upheld based on circumstantial evidence. Again, that process, however, is also rank with biases and good faith errors where the forks in the road for making inferential calls wind up making the wrong calls. On occasion, prosecutorial and/or police misconduct also happens, such as withholding acquitting evidence, shaded and puffed testimony, etc, by unscrupulous and overzealous officials. Another problematic tactic IMO is using the threat of the death penalty to encourage guilty pleas in such cases. It's a good tactic where guilt of first degree murder is free from all doubts for the purposes of judicial economy and getting quick finality for the criminal and the victims, but when it's used as a Russian Roulette tactic to get a plea where the prosecution might be concerned about an acquittal of the whole charge or level of degree of guilt (like with circumstances where second degree or manslaughter might be at issue), that's shady IMO.

That said, most people are in prison for one simple reason: they did it and it was sufficiently shown they did it. But, it's a human institution and conducted by humans, and thus it makes a percentage of errors on rendering convictions.

Since 1973, 135 people have been released from death row in 26 states with evidence of their innocence. IMO, that's piss poor and an indictment of the current death penalty criteria as it stands. The appeals process and keeping prisoners alive allows for future review and discovery of any flaws in the conviction process. Whilst understanding that abolition of the death penalty remains a divided and controversial subject in the US, assuring that only people that are unquestionably guilty of first degree murder with aggravating circumstances should not be. IMO if the death penalty is going to be used in a jurisdiction, the burden of proof should be higher than that for reaching the conviction itself: it should only be upon proof free from any reasonable possibility of human error in the first degree murder conviction determination.

__________________

I'm actually against the death penalty but I was wondering, since you had that statistic readily available, I was wondering if you had the number of people who have actually been executed during the same time period.

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

since 1976 there have been 1,173 executions in the U.S.

U.S. Executions Since 1976

JDJarvis posted that, plus this site contains very comprehensive factual information.

Death Penalty Information Center

It's an anti-DP site, but it's not a rant/OP-Ed site but well broken down in stats and cases.

__________________

IMO the death penalty should only be used when a criminal is particularly menacing even after being sentenced.

'Beyond a reasonable doubt' is problematic, since even the "best" methods of proving someone's innocence/guilt aren't failsafe.

According to these statistics about 1/10 people who are sentenced to death row are later proven innocent. A pretty abominable statistic IMO. If anything the death penalty should be used far less and should be considered only for the most serious crimes, and only when a person's intentions were clear.

Next to life, the second biggest potential waste is the cost of the death penalty.

Costs of the Death Penalty | Death Penalty Information Center

Death Penalty:The High Cost of the Death Penalty

The death penalty is wasteful beyond a doubt, and is a very uncertain crime preventative. Besides the "justice" that is served when a man is sentenced to death, the DP is purposeless and a waste under almost every circumstance.

__________________
"Hard work without talent is a shame, but talent without hard work is a tragedy." -fortune cookie