Admissibility of Justice
In order to keep a justice system in good working condition, avoiding
wrong and random judgements, I suggest that judgements should be
evaluated according to the following 5 factors.
- 1. Statistics.
The particular judicial technique or methodology of justice has
been subjected to statistical hypothesis testing.
- 2. Errors.
The error rate of the judicial procedure has been established.
- 3. Controlling.
The standards controlling the judicial procedure exist and have
been maintained.
- 4. Peer review.
The judgement has been peer reviewed and published.
- 5. Acceptance.
The judicial procedure has a general widespread acceptance.
People versed in justice, such as lawyers, which I am not, will
probably recognize these 5 points as a mirror of the Daubert
vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, case in America.
My point is, that when the justice system is much more stringent
against science than it is against itself, it is sick. Or to express
this another way: When lawyers can successfully get accused people
free with the argument that a chance of 1/1000000 of innocence is
enough, while at the same time the number of innocent people in jails
are 1-10%, reason has left the court. So, to fix that, put science
into the justice system.
2003.9.2
Any comment?
