Good Reasons to Trust a Courtroom, Over a Scientific Laboratory

[Stephen3141]

Good Reasons to Trust a Courtroom Over a Laboratory When Trying to Determine What Happened in the Past | Cold Case Christianity

The daily courtroom process of determining truth is still the single best method of determining what happened in the past.

coldcasechristianity.com

There are a lot of people who believe Trump's assertions that his hush money trial
was hopelessly biased, and that the jury arriving at his convictions was totaly
perverted.

But, from a Christian point of view, there are strong controls in place in an
American courtroom, to test the evidence that is introduced into a court trial.

Christians need to carefully think about these controls, before rejecting convictions
decided on by American juries.

 

[Tuur]

Good Reasons to Trust a Courtroom Over a Laboratory When Trying to Determine What Happened in the Past | Cold Case Christianity

The daily courtroom process of determining truth is still the single best method of determining what happened in the past.

coldcasechristianity.com

There are a lot of people who believe Trump's assertions that his hush money trial
was hopelessly biased, and that the jury arriving at his convictions was totaly
perverted.

But, from a Christian point of view, there are strong controls in place in an
American courtroom, to test the evidence that is introduced into a court trial.

Christians need to carefully think about these controls, before rejecting convictions
decided on by American juries.

If your assertion were correct, the US wouldn't have Federal laws passed because of juries letting guilty defendants off because they were white. That way if a jury refused to convict someone clearly guilty, the Federal government could indict on those charges and bring them to trial outside of a local court where juries were biased.

This presents a conundrum. If juries are, as you claim, more reliable than the scientific method, then you have to say those juries who "just happened" to let off white defendants in trials of crimes minorities were absolutely correct to do so. There is also the conundrum of Federal juries then convicting those same defendants for the same acts based on Federal charges. How, then could these defendants could be innocent in one court and guilty in another? If, as you assert, juries are more reliable than the scientific method, how can one of the juries be wrong?

 

[Stephen3141]

If your assertion were correct, the US wouldn't have Federal laws passed because of juries letting guilty defendants off because they were white. That way if a jury refused to convict someone clearly guilty, the Federal government could indict on those charges and bring them to trial outside of a local court where juries were biased.

This presents a conundrum. If juries are, as you claim, more reliable than the scientific method, then you have to say those juries who "just happened" to let off white defendants in trials of crimes minorities were absolutely correct to do so. There is also the conundrum of Federal juries then convicting those same defendants for the same acts based on Federal charges. How, then could these defendants could be innocent in one court and guilty in another? If, as you assert, juries are more reliable than the scientific method, how can one of the juries be wrong?

I think that your objection, does not take into account that part of the fair rule
of law in America, explicitly addresses bias due to race, sex, age, and other factors.
If a defendant thinks that he has not been handled justly, he can appeal the
decision of the court.

The article that I referenced, deals with courts using the fair rule of law,
in America, versus the (sometime) claim that a scientific laboratory can do
analysis, that is more accurate than the deliberations that go on in
American courts.

Note that American courts, can include any and all scientific information about
a case, that passes the tests of being relevant and sound. So that the logical
choice is not courtroom process VERSUS scientific method, but includes both.

 

[Tuur]

I think that your objection, does not take into account that part of the fair rule
of law in America, explicitly addresses bias due to race, sex, age, and other factors.
If a defendant thinks that he has not been handled justly, he can appeal the
decision of the court.

I think you may not remember a time when someone could literally get away with murder if they had a certain skin color. Were the state juries right to acquit and the Federal wrong to convict? Were the state juries wrong to acquit and the Federal right to convict? Either means that juries do not necessarily arrive at a decision more accurate than the scientific method. Even appeal is an admission that juries are not infallible.

 

[Richard T]

Too bad the article does not discuss lying witnesses, unethical lawyers, evidence that is forbidden to be introduced, judges bias in all the decision-making and juries that are quite fickle. Also, in science testing is reproduced by others to verify findings. To do that in a courtroom you would need to try cases independently with different judges for at least several times.