|
Imagine that a group of profession jurors is being charged with corruption. Who gets to decide if they're corrupt? Other profession jurors. Guess what group of people they're going to go out of their way to protect, even if it means making absurd comparisons or flouting legality? In-group and confirmation bias is a real thing that everyone has, it's not something limited to cops or politicians or bankers or whatever. Being an expert does not ameliorate this, it just provides an ad-hoc rationalization for corruption under the guise of enlightenment. Everyone must be accountable to their peers, not 'their betters', no exceptions. If I was charged with a crime, I'd take a jury of dim-but-well-meaning rednecks over a bunch of blowhard law graduates, with an inflated ego on account of their judgment literally being over-valued. rudatron fucked around with this message at 12:44 on Oct 31, 2015 |
#
¿
Oct 31, 2015 12:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 02:31 |
|