On 2023-11-07, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-11-03, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>
>> > Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> writes:
>> >>Was it Aristotle who determined that dolphins were mammals rather than
>> >>fish? (Or am I confusing him or dolphins with someone or something
>> >>else?)
>> >
>> > In 1819, a merchant refused to pay a fish product tax on whale
>> > oil because a whale was not a fish. A court finally ruled
>> > that a whale is a fish. Later, a law established that a whale
>> > is not a fish. (According to D. Graham Burnett in »Trying
>> > Leviathan: The Nineteenth-Century New York Court Case That
>> > Put the Whale on Trial and Challenged the Order of Nature«)
>>
>> I found a summary of the case here.
>>
>> <https://history.nycourts.gov/case/maurice-v-judd/>
>
> What's typicaly American about the whole thing is the idea
> that truth of a proposition can be established by judicial prceedings.
> Whales are fish if a jury says they are,

In any legal system, if the law says there's a tax on X class of
products, there will be court cases to determine if some item Y is in
class X or not. I don't think that's particularly American, although
juries are common in the English legal system & others derived from
it.

--
The human brain, weighing about three pounds, has the computing
power of nearly one billion laptops. The brain has been credited
with notable accomplishments such as the Magna Carta, Special
Relativity, and Hee Haw. [Science Museum of Virginia]

On 2023-11-06, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> On 2023-11-06 15:55:58 +0000, Adam Funk said:
>
>> On 2023-11-03, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>
>>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> writes:
>>>> Was it Aristotle who determined that dolphins were mammals rather than
>>>> fish? (Or am I confusing him or dolphins with someone or something
>>>> else?)
>>>
>>> In 1819, a merchant refused to pay a fish product tax on whale
>>> oil because a whale was not a fish. A court finally ruled
>>> that a whale is a fish. Later, a law established that a whale
>>> is not a fish. (According to D. Graham Burnett in »Trying
>>> Leviathan: The Nineteenth-Century New York Court Case That
>>> Put the Whale on Trial and Challenged the Order of Nature«)
>>
>> I found a summary of the case here.
>>
>> <https://history.nycourts.gov/case/maurice-v-judd/>
>
> Although everyone seems to agree that whales are not fish, it isn't as
> clear as that. Why are sharks and lampreys allowed to be fish if whales
> aren't? They're all chordates, but in different classes. "Fish" is not
> a recognized class.

It's *now* known that there's no "fish only" clade, & that tetrapods
are in any clade that includes all the bony & non-bony "fish", sure
--- but was there any way anyone could have figured that out in 1819?

However, scientists did know then that whales, dolphins, &c., were
mammals (hair, live birth, lactation, air-breathing) unlike all the
water-breathing vertebrates ("fish").

--
The stakes are high and so am I

On 2023-11-07, Adam Funk wrote:

> On 2023-11-06, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
>> On 2023-11-06 15:55:58 +0000, Adam Funk said:
>>
>>> On 2023-11-03, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>>
>>>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> writes:
>>>>> Was it Aristotle who determined that dolphins were mammals rather than
>>>>> fish? (Or am I confusing him or dolphins with someone or something
>>>>> else?)
>>>>
>>>> In 1819, a merchant refused to pay a fish product tax on whale
>>>> oil because a whale was not a fish. A court finally ruled
>>>> that a whale is a fish. Later, a law established that a whale
>>>> is not a fish. (According to D. Graham Burnett in »Trying
>>>> Leviathan: The Nineteenth-Century New York Court Case That
>>>> Put the Whale on Trial and Challenged the Order of Nature«)
>>>
>>> I found a summary of the case here.
>>>
>>> <https://history.nycourts.gov/case/maurice-v-judd/>
>>
>> Although everyone seems to agree that whales are not fish, it isn't as
>> clear as that. Why are sharks and lampreys allowed to be fish if whales
>> aren't? They're all chordates, but in different classes. "Fish" is not
>> a recognized class.
>
> It's *now* known that there's no "fish only" clade, & that tetrapods
> are in any clade that includes all the bony & non-bony "fish", sure
> --- but was there any way anyone could have figured that out in 1819?

Also, the concept of clades didn't exist then --- they had only
Linnaean taxonomy.

> However, scientists did know then that whales, dolphins, &c., were
> mammals (hair, live birth, lactation, air-breathing) unlike all the
> water-breathing vertebrates ("fish").

--
If a thing is worth doing, it is worth forcing someone else to do it.
(Sir Henry Rawlinson)

On Tue, 07 Nov 2023 13:59:37 +0000
Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:

> On 2023-11-07, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2023-11-03, Stefan Ram wrote:
> >>
> >> > Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> writes:
> >> >>Was it Aristotle who determined that dolphins were mammals rather than
> >> >>fish? (Or am I confusing him or dolphins with someone or something
> >> >>else?)
> >> >
> >> > In 1819, a merchant refused to pay a fish product tax on whale
> >> > oil because a whale was not a fish. A court finally ruled
> >> > that a whale is a fish. Later, a law established that a whale
> >> > is not a fish. (According to D. Graham Burnett in »Trying
> >> > Leviathan: The Nineteenth-Century New York Court Case That
> >> > Put the Whale on Trial and Challenged the Order of Nature«)
> >>
> >> I found a summary of the case here.
> >>
> >> <https://history.nycourts.gov/case/maurice-v-judd/>
> >
> > What's typicaly American about the whole thing is the idea
> > that truth of a proposition can be established by judicial prceedings.
> > Whales are fish if a jury says they are,
>
> In any legal system, if the law says there's a tax on X class of
> products, there will be court cases to determine if some item Y is in
> class X or not. I don't think that's particularly American, although
> juries are common in the English legal system & others derived from
> it.
>
>
Yes.

see, e.g. 'Jaffa Cakes'

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

In article <9fsp1kxjmj.ln2@news.ducksburg.com>, a24061
@ducksburg.com says...
>
> On 2023-11-07, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2023-11-03, Stefan Ram wrote:
> >>
> >> > Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> writes:
> >> >>Was it Aristotle who determined that dolphins were mammals rather than
> >> >>fish? (Or am I confusing him or dolphins with someone or something
> >> >>else?)
> >> >
> >> > In 1819, a merchant refused to pay a fish product tax on whale
> >> > oil because a whale was not a fish. A court finally ruled
> >> > that a whale is a fish. Later, a law established that a whale
> >> > is not a fish. (According to D. Graham Burnett in »Trying
> >> > Leviathan: The Nineteenth-Century New York Court Case That
> >> > Put the Whale on Trial and Challenged the Order of Nature«)
> >>
> >> I found a summary of the case here.
> >>
> >> <https://history.nycourts.gov/case/maurice-v-judd/>
> >
> > What's typicaly American about the whole thing is the idea
> > that truth of a proposition can be established by judicial prceedings.
> > Whales are fish if a jury says they are,
>
> In any legal system, if the law says there's a tax on X class of
> products, there will be court cases to determine if some item Y is in
> class X or not. I don't think that's particularly American, although
> juries are common in the English legal system & others derived from
> it.

AFAIK English Courts of Appeal don't have juries.

Janet

On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 3:21:52 PM UTC-7, Janet wrote:
> In article <9fsp1kx...@news.ducksburg.com>, a24061
> @ducksburg.com says...
> >
> > On 2023-11-07, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >
> > > Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 2023-11-03, Stefan Ram wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> writes:
> > >> >>Was it Aristotle who determined that dolphins were mammals rather than
> > >> >>fish? (Or am I confusing him or dolphins with someone or something
> > >> >>else?)
> > >> >
> > >> > In 1819, a merchant refused to pay a fish product tax on whale
> > >> > oil because a whale was not a fish. A court finally ruled
> > >> > that a whale is a fish. Later, a law established that a whale
> > >> > is not a fish. (According to D. Graham Burnett in »Trying
> > >> > Leviathan: The Nineteenth-Century New York Court Case That
> > >> > Put the Whale on Trial and Challenged the Order of Nature«)
> > >>
> > >> I found a summary of the case here.
> > >>
> > >> <https://history.nycourts.gov/case/maurice-v-judd/>
> > >
> > > What's typicaly American about the whole thing is the idea
> > > that truth of a proposition can be established by judicial prceedings..
> > > Whales are fish if a jury says they are,
> >
> > In any legal system, if the law says there's a tax on X class of
> > products, there will be court cases to determine if some item Y is in
> > class X or not. I don't think that's particularly American, although
> > juries are common in the English legal system & others derived from
> > it.

> AFAIK English Courts of Appeal don't have juries.

Neither do American ones. The case in question didn't go to an
appellate court, but in other circumstances it might have.

--
Jerry Friedman

On 08/11/23 09:21, Janet wrote:
> In article <9fsp1kxjmj.ln2@news.ducksburg.com>, a24061 @ducksburg.com
> says...

>> In any legal system, if the law says there's a tax on X class of
>> products, there will be court cases to determine if some item Y is
>> in class X or not. I don't think that's particularly American,
>> although juries are common in the English legal system & others
>> derived from it.
>
> AFAIK English Courts of Appeal don't have juries.

In my country juries are used for criminal trials, but not so much for
civil trials. They are not used for the less serious offences. I'm not
sure whether they're used in the cases mentioned above.

In NSW, someone charged with an indictable offence has the option of
asking for a judge-only trial. From what I've seen of the jury system,
you should opt for a jury if you're guilty, but a judge-only trial if
you're innocent.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

Watch this space, where Janet advised that...
> In article <9fsp1kxjmj.ln2@news.ducksburg.com>, a24061
> @ducksburg.com says...
>>
>> On 2023-11-07, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-11-03, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> writes:
>>>>>> Was it Aristotle who determined that dolphins were mammals rather than
>>>>>> fish? (Or am I confusing him or dolphins with someone or something
>>>>>> else?)
>>>>>
>>>>> In 1819, a merchant refused to pay a fish product tax on whale
>>>>> oil because a whale was not a fish. A court finally ruled
>>>>> that a whale is a fish. Later, a law established that a whale
>>>>> is not a fish. (According to D. Graham Burnett in »Trying
>>>>> Leviathan: The Nineteenth-Century New York Court Case That
>>>>> Put the Whale on Trial and Challenged the Order of Nature«)
>>>>
>>>> I found a summary of the case here.
>>>>
>>>> <https://history.nycourts.gov/case/maurice-v-judd/>
>>>
>>> What's typicaly American about the whole thing is the idea
>>> that truth of a proposition can be established by judicial prceedings.
>>> Whales are fish if a jury says they are,
>>
>> In any legal system, if the law says there's a tax on X class of
>> products, there will be court cases to determine if some item Y is in
>> class X or not. I don't think that's particularly American, although
>> juries are common in the English legal system & others derived from
>> it.
>
> AFAIK English Courts of Appeal don't have juries.
>
> Janet

I think you'll find that in the US, Courts of Appeal (or Appellate
Courts) don't have juries. That seems to be the case for Federal
courts and the state courts I am aware of.

/dps

--
"It wasn't just a splash in the pan"
-- lectricbikes.com

Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:

> Watch this space, where Janet advised that...
> > In article <9fsp1kxjmj.ln2@news.ducksburg.com>, a24061
> > @ducksburg.com says...
> >>
> >> On 2023-11-07, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>
> >>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 2023-11-03, Stefan Ram wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> writes:
> >>>>>> Was it Aristotle who determined that dolphins were mammals rather than
> >>>>>> fish? (Or am I confusing him or dolphins with someone or something
> >>>>>> else?)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In 1819, a merchant refused to pay a fish product tax on whale
> >>>>> oil because a whale was not a fish. A court finally ruled
> >>>>> that a whale is a fish. Later, a law established that a whale
> >>>>> is not a fish. (According to D. Graham Burnett in »Trying
> >>>>> Leviathan: The Nineteenth-Century New York Court Case That
> >>>>> Put the Whale on Trial and Challenged the Order of Nature«)
> >>>>
> >>>> I found a summary of the case here.
> >>>>
> >>>> <https://history.nycourts.gov/case/maurice-v-judd/>
> >>>
> >>> What's typicaly American about the whole thing is the idea
> >>> that truth of a proposition can be established by judicial prceedings.
> >>> Whales are fish if a jury says they are,
> >>
> >> In any legal system, if the law says there's a tax on X class of
> >> products, there will be court cases to determine if some item Y is in
> >> class X or not. I don't think that's particularly American, although
> >> juries are common in the English legal system & others derived from
> >> it.
> >
> > AFAIK English Courts of Appeal don't have juries.
> >
> > Janet
>
> I think you'll find that in the US, Courts of Appeal (or Appellate
> Courts) don't have juries. That seems to be the case for Federal
> courts and the state courts I am aware of.

Whatever, all sources about the decision that established that whales
are fish that I have seen state that it was by a decision by jury.
There really is no need to know the intricacies of what the court was
called and in what hierarchy of courts it fits.

The affair illustrates the anti-science attitude of Americans
at the time. They prefered truth-finding by scholastic methods
(consulting books and arguing over the interpretation of the contents)
over the scientific method.
(despite scientific evidence having been given by expert testimony)
It is inherent in the scientific method that truth must be established
by observation of nature rather than by majority vote.

Jan

On 07-Nov-23 11:35, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-11-03, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>
>>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> writes:
>>>> Was it Aristotle who determined that dolphins were mammals rather than
>>>> fish? (Or am I confusing him or dolphins with someone or something
>>>> else?)
>>>
>>> In 1819, a merchant refused to pay a fish product tax on whale
>>> oil because a whale was not a fish. A court finally ruled
>>> that a whale is a fish. Later, a law established that a whale
>>> is not a fish. (According to D. Graham Burnett in »Trying
>>> Leviathan: The Nineteenth-Century New York Court Case That
>>> Put the Whale on Trial and Challenged the Order of Nature«)
>>
>> I found a summary of the case here.
>>
>> <https://history.nycourts.gov/case/maurice-v-judd/>
>
> What's typicaly American about the whole thing is the idea
> that truth of a proposition can be established by judicial prceedings.
> Whales are fish if a jury says they are,

Where the proposition is:
"The accused is guilty of this crime".
Juries routinely perform this function in a good many legal systems. It
is certainly not an American idea.

--
Sam Plusnet

Jan Lodder:
> > What's typicaly American about the whole thing is the idea
> > that truth of a proposition can be established by judicial prceedings.
> > Whales are fish if a jury says they are,

"Sam":
> Where the proposition is:
> "The accused is guilty of this crime".
> Juries routinely perform this function in a good many legal systems. It
> is certainly not an American idea.

I think you mean "The prosecution has proven the accused guilty of
this crime beyond a reasonable doubt".
--
Mark Brader | "...there are lots of things that I don't remember,
Toronto | but if you ask for an example, I can't remember any."
msb@vex.net | --Michael Wares

On 2023-11-08 03:57, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Watch this space, where Janet advised that...
>>> In article <9fsp1kxjmj.ln2@news.ducksburg.com>, a24061
>>> @ducksburg.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On 2023-11-07, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2023-11-03, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> writes:
>>>>>>>> Was it Aristotle who determined that dolphins were mammals rather than
>>>>>>>> fish? (Or am I confusing him or dolphins with someone or something
>>>>>>>> else?)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In 1819, a merchant refused to pay a fish product tax on whale
>>>>>>> oil because a whale was not a fish. A court finally ruled
>>>>>>> that a whale is a fish. Later, a law established that a whale
>>>>>>> is not a fish. (According to D. Graham Burnett in »Trying
>>>>>>> Leviathan: The Nineteenth-Century New York Court Case That
>>>>>>> Put the Whale on Trial and Challenged the Order of Nature«)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I found a summary of the case here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://history.nycourts.gov/case/maurice-v-judd/>
>>>>>
>>>>> What's typicaly American about the whole thing is the idea
>>>>> that truth of a proposition can be established by judicial prceedings.
>>>>> Whales are fish if a jury says they are,
>>>>
>>>> In any legal system, if the law says there's a tax on X class of
>>>> products, there will be court cases to determine if some item Y is in
>>>> class X or not. I don't think that's particularly American, although
>>>> juries are common in the English legal system & others derived from
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> AFAIK English Courts of Appeal don't have juries.
>>>
>>> Janet
>>
>> I think you'll find that in the US, Courts of Appeal (or Appellate
>> Courts) don't have juries. That seems to be the case for Federal
>> courts and the state courts I am aware of.
>
> Whatever, all sources about the decision that established that whales
> are fish that I have seen state that it was by a decision by jury.
> There really is no need to know the intricacies of what the court was
> called and in what hierarchy of courts it fits.
>
> The affair illustrates the anti-science attitude of Americans
> at the time. They prefered truth-finding by scholastic methods
> (consulting books and arguing over the interpretation of the contents)
> over the scientific method.
> (despite scientific evidence having been given by expert testimony)
> It is inherent in the scientific method that truth must be established
> by observation of nature rather than by majority vote.

On the other hand, Europe is famous for the establishment of many
religions and their so-scientific reasoning.

--
We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice
because thorn bushes have roses.

lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:

> On 2023-11-08 03:57, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Watch this space, where Janet advised that...
> >>> In article <9fsp1kxjmj.ln2@news.ducksburg.com>, a24061
> >>> @ducksburg.com says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2023-11-07, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 2023-11-03, Stefan Ram wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>> Was it Aristotle who determined that dolphins were mammals rather
> >>>>>>>> than fish? (Or am I confusing him or dolphins with someone or
> >>>>>>>> something else?)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In 1819, a merchant refused to pay a fish product tax on whale
> >>>>>>> oil because a whale was not a fish. A court finally ruled
> >>>>>>> that a whale is a fish. Later, a law established that a whale
> >>>>>>> is not a fish. (According to D. Graham Burnett in »Trying
> >>>>>>> Leviathan: The Nineteenth-Century New York Court Case That
> >>>>>>> Put the Whale on Trial and Challenged the Order of Nature«)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I found a summary of the case here.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <https://history.nycourts.gov/case/maurice-v-judd/>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What's typicaly American about the whole thing is the idea
> >>>>> that truth of a proposition can be established by judicial prceedings.
> >>>>> Whales are fish if a jury says they are,
> >>>>
> >>>> In any legal system, if the law says there's a tax on X class of
> >>>> products, there will be court cases to determine if some item Y is in
> >>>> class X or not. I don't think that's particularly American, although
> >>>> juries are common in the English legal system & others derived from
> >>>> it.
> >>>
> >>> AFAIK English Courts of Appeal don't have juries.
> >>>
> >>> Janet
> >>
> >> I think you'll find that in the US, Courts of Appeal (or Appellate
> >> Courts) don't have juries. That seems to be the case for Federal
> >> courts and the state courts I am aware of.
> >
> > Whatever, all sources about the decision that established that whales
> > are fish that I have seen state that it was by a decision by jury.
> > There really is no need to know the intricacies of what the court was
> > called and in what hierarchy of courts it fits.
> >
> > The affair illustrates the anti-science attitude of Americans
> > at the time. They prefered truth-finding by scholastic methods
> > (consulting books and arguing over the interpretation of the contents)
> > over the scientific method.
> > (despite scientific evidence having been given by expert testimony)
> > It is inherent in the scientific method that truth must be established
> > by observation of nature rather than by majority vote.
>
> On the other hand, Europe is famous for the establishment of many
> religions and their so-scientific reasoning.

You may have a point there. Newton's Principia had just been published
while the Americans were preparing to have their Salem witch trials,

Jan
(you asked for it)

On 08-Nov-23 23:11, Mark Brader wrote:
> Jan Lodder:
>>> What's typicaly American about the whole thing is the idea
>>> that truth of a proposition can be established by judicial prceedings.
>>> Whales are fish if a jury says they are,
>
> "Sam":
>> Where the proposition is:
>> "The accused is guilty of this crime".
>> Juries routinely perform this function in a good many legal systems. It
>> is certainly not an American idea.
>
> I think you mean "The prosecution has proven the accused guilty of
> this crime beyond a reasonable doubt".

No. Even if the prosecution does a lousy job, the jury could still
decide the accused is guilty.
(Or find them not guilty when the evidence is compelling).

It is the jury which makes a finding of 'fact'.
If they say the accused is guilty, then guilty (s)he is, and punishment
will be based on that fact.

--
Sam Plusnet

Jan Lodder:
>>>> What's typicaly American about the whole thing is the idea
>>>> that truth of a proposition can be established by judicial prceedings.
>>>> Whales are fish if a jury says they are,

"Sam":
>>> Where the proposition is:
>>> "The accused is guilty of this crime".
>>> Juries routinely perform this function in a good many legal systems. It
>>> is certainly not an American idea.

Mark Brader:
>> I think you mean "The prosecution has proven the accused guilty of
>> this crime beyond a reasonable doubt".

"Sam":
> No. Even if the prosecution does a lousy job, the jury could still
> decide the accused is guilty.
> (Or find them not guilty when the evidence is compelling).

Of course they *could*, and they do, but they're not allowed to.
"The accused is guilty" is not the proposition presented to them.

(In countries that have the presumption of innocence, of course.
But that's what we're talking about.)

> It is the jury which makes a finding of 'fact'.
> If they say the accused is guilty, then guilty (s)he is, and punishment
> will be based on that fact.

So-called.

I've made my point and will not debate this further.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Perhaps I should have done the posting and sleeping
msb@vex.net | in the other order." --Peter Duncanson

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Mark Brader <msb@vex.net> wrote:

> Jan Lodder:
> > > What's typicaly American about the whole thing is the idea
> > > that truth of a proposition can be established by judicial prceedings.
> > > Whales are fish if a jury says they are,
>
> "Sam":
> > Where the proposition is:
> > "The accused is guilty of this crime".
> > Juries routinely perform this function in a good many legal systems. It
> > is certainly not an American idea.
>
> I think you mean "The prosecution has proven the accused guilty of
> this crime beyond a reasonable doubt".

You botched the attributions, -once again-.
Please don't do it.

Jan

Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

> On 08-Nov-23 23:11, Mark Brader wrote:
> > Jan Lodder:
> >>> What's typicaly American about the whole thing is the idea
> >>> that truth of a proposition can be established by judicial prceedings.
> >>> Whales are fish if a jury says they are,
> >
> > "Sam":
> >> Where the proposition is:
> >> "The accused is guilty of this crime".
> >> Juries routinely perform this function in a good many legal systems. It
> >> is certainly not an American idea.
> >
> > I think you mean "The prosecution has proven the accused guilty of
> > this crime beyond a reasonable doubt".
>
> No. Even if the prosecution does a lousy job, the jury could still
> decide the accused is guilty.
> (Or find them not guilty when the evidence is compelling).
>
> It is the jury which makes a finding of 'fact'.
> If they say the accused is guilty, then guilty (s)he is, and punishment
> will be based on that fact.

Yes, and in the 'whales are fish' verdict
two different modes of 'fact finding' conflict.
(of course both ideas of 'fact' are provisional,
merely the best possible on basis of available knowledge)

Juries (and Roman cardinals) should have the good sense
not to 'find fact' on matters of science,

Jan

Mark Brader <msb@vex.net> wrote:

> Jan Lodder:
> >>>> What's typicaly American about the whole thing is the idea
> >>>> that truth of a proposition can be established by judicial prceedings.
> >>>> Whales are fish if a jury says they are,
>
> "Sam":
> >>> Where the proposition is:
> >>> "The accused is guilty of this crime".
> >>> Juries routinely perform this function in a good many legal systems. It
> >>> is certainly not an American idea.
>
> Mark Brader:
> >> I think you mean "The prosecution has proven the accused guilty of
> >> this crime beyond a reasonable doubt".
>
> "Sam":
> > No. Even if the prosecution does a lousy job, the jury could still
> > decide the accused is guilty.
> > (Or find them not guilty when the evidence is compelling).
>
> Of course they *could*, and they do, but they're not allowed to.
> "The accused is guilty" is not the proposition presented to them.
>
> (In countries that have the presumption of innocence, of course.
> But that's what we're talking about.)
>
> > It is the jury which makes a finding of 'fact'.
> > If they say the accused is guilty, then guilty (s)he is, and punishment
> > will be based on that fact.
>
> So-called.
>
> I've made my point and will not debate this further.

Right. You have messed up the thread to such an extent
that further discussion is undesirable,

Jan

On 13/11/23 09:10, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Juries (and Roman cardinals) should have the good sense not to 'find
> fact' on matters of science,

In a controversial Australian case, a woman was pardoned this year after
serving 20 years in prison for supposedly murdering her four children.
For a number of years now, her supporters have been lobbying for her
case to be reopened, after investigations showed that at least three of
the children had genetic abnormalities that would have killed them.

In some quarters the pardon has been seen as a "victory for science", in
that the legal system was finally convinced to listen to the testimony
of expert witnesses.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:51:33 +1100, Peter Moylan
<peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 13/11/23 09:10, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
>> Juries (and Roman cardinals) should have the good sense not to 'find
>> fact' on matters of science,
>
>In a controversial Australian case, a woman was pardoned this year after
>serving 20 years in prison for supposedly murdering her four children.
>For a number of years now, her supporters have been lobbying for her
>case to be reopened, after investigations showed that at least three of
>the children had genetic abnormalities that would have killed them.
>
>In some quarters the pardon has been seen as a "victory for science", in
>that the legal system was finally convinced to listen to the testimony
>of expert witnesses.

Did they ever solve or come to come sort of settlement in the Lindy
Chamberlain-Creighton case. "A dingo ate my baby!"

On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 18:10:18 -0800, Mack A. Damia
<drsteerforth@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:51:33 +1100, Peter Moylan
><peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 13/11/23 09:10, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>>> Juries (and Roman cardinals) should have the good sense not to 'find
>>> fact' on matters of science,
>>
>>In a controversial Australian case, a woman was pardoned this year after
>>serving 20 years in prison for supposedly murdering her four children.
>>For a number of years now, her supporters have been lobbying for her
>>case to be reopened, after investigations showed that at least three of
>>the children had genetic abnormalities that would have killed them.
>>
>>In some quarters the pardon has been seen as a "victory for science", in
>>that the legal system was finally convinced to listen to the testimony
>>of expert witnesses.
>
>Did they ever solve or come to come sort of settlement in the Lindy
>Chamberlain-Creighton case. "A dingo ate my baby!"

Wikipedia confirms that authorities finally agreed to the reality.

I read about it before. Years later, campers found a dingo
lair with property from the scene -- I forget what. That's
part of what prompted the change of mind.

What was relevant for the original convictions of the woman
and her husband, I read before, is that they were members
of an oddball religious sect. It's not that people distrusted
them for it, but in that sect, a STOIC response was deemed
fit and proper. Most other Aussies therefore regarded them
as unloving, uncaring, and probably guilty -- because they
were not weeping and wailing. Or whatever they should
have been doing.

--
Rich Ulrich

On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 00:49:10 -0500, Rich Ulrich
<rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 18:10:18 -0800, Mack A. Damia
><drsteerforth@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:51:33 +1100, Peter Moylan
>><peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On 13/11/23 09:10, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>
>>>> Juries (and Roman cardinals) should have the good sense not to 'find
>>>> fact' on matters of science,
>>>
>>>In a controversial Australian case, a woman was pardoned this year after
>>>serving 20 years in prison for supposedly murdering her four children.
>>>For a number of years now, her supporters have been lobbying for her
>>>case to be reopened, after investigations showed that at least three of
>>>the children had genetic abnormalities that would have killed them.
>>>
>>>In some quarters the pardon has been seen as a "victory for science", in
>>>that the legal system was finally convinced to listen to the testimony
>>>of expert witnesses.
>>
>>Did they ever solve or come to some sort of settlement in the Lindy
>>Chamberlain-Creighton case. "A dingo ate my baby!"
>
>Wikipedia confirms that authorities finally agreed to the reality.
>
>I read about it before. Years later, campers found a dingo
>lair with property from the scene -- I forget what. That's
>part of what prompted the change of mind.
>
>What was relevant for the original convictions of the woman
>and her husband, I read before, is that they were members
>of an oddball religious sect. It's not that people distrusted
>them for it, but in that sect, a STOIC response was deemed
>fit and proper. Most other Aussies therefore regarded them
>as unloving, uncaring, and probably guilty -- because they
>were not weeping and wailing. Or whatever they should
>have been doing.

She served about four years in prison, I think, but was eventually
pardoned by the government along with her husband. Lots of forensic
analysis involved in her release.

Was it Meryl Streep who played her in the film? I could do my own
research , but I am a lazy bar steward these days.

I think Elaine in Seinfeld had some sort of comedy bit about it.