• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        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.