andyfuller wrote:
You are accusing the judge of not being fully aware of the facts because he probably isn't a scientist and as such in your book he may have given an incorrect decision.
I'm not sure that's what I said. I do think that there's something to be said for someone leading an inquiry into something to be an expert in the field where possible, however. If you have a leaky roof, you call a plumber, not an electrician!
andyfuller wrote:In your book they aren't guilty just because one judge found them guilty, how many need to find them guilty in order to satisfy you
When I was studying why markets are efficient, I once came across a theory that basically says 'If there is a 1 in 2 chance of one person being wrong, then mathematically the chances of two people both happening to be wrong about the same thing are less, and so on'. This is why, it is said, that if you or I guess how many beans there are in a jar, we will be way out, but if 10,000 people guess then some people theorise that the average of the guesses will probably be pretty accurate - See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds.
If one person makes a decision, that decision can be influenced, consciously or unconsciously, by his or her own desires and prejudices. For a jury to all get it wrong - assuming that there is no groupthink involved - is far less likely IMHO.
andyfuller wrote:Last time I checked it wasn't a requirement of a judge to be competent in the field they are judging on in order to give a verdict. That is not a requirement of their role.
Last time I checked it was in certain cases - I believe there is such a thing as a specialist judge.
Jeff
, 
.