Hacker News Reader

Comment by user3939382 | Hacker News Reader

Who says what's true? Juries don't become scientists on issues like this, they listen to expert testimony. Technically you have to convince the experts that are testifying.

It's not perfect, but of all the problems our (largely corrupt) government has this is the least.

Corporate interests run roughshod over our entire democracy, the contemporary "justice" system is basically designed to protect them. I don't think we have to lose any sleep over them not getting a fair shake.

View on HN

I don't think it is acceptable that the legal system is punishing someone for causing damages that are probably not real, even if that someone is some evil corporation.

My primary point is, who decides they're probably not real, if not a jury informed by expert testimony?

My point is that countries whose legal systems don't rely on juries appear to be less affected by such counterfactual rulings. Maybe it is simply easier to manipulate jurors than professional judges.

in the world of antivaxxers, flat earthers you really trust a jury full of laymen to make judgements? Quoting Blazing Saddles: "These are people of the land, the common clay of the new west.... you know, morons"

The vast majority of people believe what they want to believe and if that's how their roll, no expert in the world will convince them that 2+2=4

Hang on. You've gone from "well, -I- have seen no evidence, and juries are just finding J&J guilty, regardless of evidence" to now your assumption that evidence doesn't exist and that this issue "probably isn't even real".

Law firms make their money on judgments.

I have little concern for their ability to do so.

But it's a pretty big risk for a law firm to take on a $100B/year company with their legal backing with no evidence of a problem that "probably isn't even real", and standing up against their expert testimony and thinking "oh yeah, we got this, payday time".

Is it a big risk? In theory the upside is large (large settlement from company) and the downside small (wasted time on a lost lawsuit). I'm not sure the risk of losing the lawsuit is significant here.

you really think that in a world chock-full of antivaxxers, flat earthers and the climate change deniers it's hard to pad a jury with clueless mouthbreathers and exploit widespread anti-corpo sentiments? Same shit with glyphosate. It's pretty much the least bad pesticide of the bunch, with the alternatives being legitimately, undeniably cancerous, yet it's glyphosate that gets banned left and right, and sued for billions by anti-science twats, because "monstanto hurr durr".

Hell, the damage of covid19 vaccines is actually proven and was noticed a few months in, yet in the case of talc used by millions of people for decades all they have is some weak, inconclusive shit.

The fact that Monsanto lost their case despite their massive legal team and virtually unlimited resources against a school groundskeeper suggests how weak/horrible their case was. They lost because glyphosate is carcinogenic, their counter argument boils down to a bunch of research they directly or indirectly paid for. “Hur dur”, from my perspective, more aptly characterizes the defense of Monsanto/Bayer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com