Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor S
You might be thinking too much about this and not seeing the forest, just the treees. A jury doesn't have to understand the nature of a case. If an ethical board finds against the actions of a professional, that can be used as evidence in the case and replace the need for true understanding. A jury will see that and it will become evidence for the case, simplifying the process greatly.
|
But see, I'm not convinced that a jury decides these cases based on the evidence. From what I've seen, it's more of a gut reaction. If the defendant "looks like a nice man," they will give him a little more benefit of the doubt despite what the objective evidence says.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the ethics board is a bad idea. And I certainly agree that it could be a useful piece of evidence. I'm just cautioning you that I don't think it will be a cure to the financial system if the only thing the board can do is provide a piece of evidence at trial. Juries are simply not reliable, consistent enforcers of the rules. As you know, that's part of the reason why medical malpractice in this country is such a mess. This is why I'm trying to think of ways for the ethics board to influence the profession besides just giving a report at trial.