A random thought on criminal justice today. In the United States, our trial system is one that is based on evidence and witness testimony. It is also adversarial. What this means in practice is that we end up with two sides who present their own evidence and witnesses and attempt to challenge the other side's evidence and witnesses. The intention of the system is that the evidence and testimony of one side stands up to scrutiny, while the other does not, and the truth becomes obvious to a judge and/or jury who decide the case. Good attorneys, however, (and in particular good defense attorneys) attack not just the opposition's evidence and witnesses but also the base epistemological assumptions the trial system makes about evidence and testimony. To abuse an old cliche, they put the system on trial. It's one thing to question a person's recollection of events; it's another to question people's general ability to remember. It's one thing to question a lab tech's proper handling of DNA; it's another to question the reliability of DNA testing. Essentially, each trial whittles away just a little bit at what courts do. This is a smart strategy in the short term and for individual clients, but in doing so, it fundamentally erodes the credibility of a social institution at the expense of social benefits. There are certainly a lot of problems with the trial system as currently conceived, but I'll leave for another day the discussion of how we might repair or replace it.
Showing posts with label court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label court. Show all posts
19 June 2013
17 February 2009
Autism and Vaccination
[I originally posted this blog on Friday 22 August 2008 on MySpace. I'm reposting it here as part of "Brad's Greatest Hits" and in coordination with the recent ruling by a special court that there are no proven links between autism and vaccines.]
There is no evidence that vaccines have any link whatsoever to the incidence of autism. That is not to say definitively that vaccines cannot contribute to the onset of autistic symptoms—although that is certainly the conclusion that the current science leads educated people to make. However, even if there is a link between vaccines and autism, the risks associated with the infections against which vaccines offer protection far outweigh any potential risk of acquiring autism. Put another way, going unimmunized, your kid is far and away more likely to die from a disease like measles than to suffer from autism.
Moreover, immunizations are not only for the protection of individual children but serve the larger purpose of protecting populations. Diseases are social phenomena. They are spread through contact between people. This is a fact often forgotten since today's parents have not experienced the widespread effects of now-controlled diseases that, just one or two generations ago, ravaged society. Choosing not to immunize one's child is not an individual choice, the repercussions of which are isolated to disparate families, but in fact, such selfish decisions have the potential to affect countless numbers of others and are, thus, immoral.
If you have children or someday plan to have children, please be rational and avoid the myopic ignorance that seems to be growing in this country. It is not just your offspring you are putting at risk; there are untold others.
There is no evidence that vaccines have any link whatsoever to the incidence of autism. That is not to say definitively that vaccines cannot contribute to the onset of autistic symptoms—although that is certainly the conclusion that the current science leads educated people to make. However, even if there is a link between vaccines and autism, the risks associated with the infections against which vaccines offer protection far outweigh any potential risk of acquiring autism. Put another way, going unimmunized, your kid is far and away more likely to die from a disease like measles than to suffer from autism.
Moreover, immunizations are not only for the protection of individual children but serve the larger purpose of protecting populations. Diseases are social phenomena. They are spread through contact between people. This is a fact often forgotten since today's parents have not experienced the widespread effects of now-controlled diseases that, just one or two generations ago, ravaged society. Choosing not to immunize one's child is not an individual choice, the repercussions of which are isolated to disparate families, but in fact, such selfish decisions have the potential to affect countless numbers of others and are, thus, immoral.
If you have children or someday plan to have children, please be rational and avoid the myopic ignorance that seems to be growing in this country. It is not just your offspring you are putting at risk; there are untold others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)