tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post4285206417291834237..comments2024-03-27T21:23:40.339-04:00Comments on Chemjobber: A California prosecutor speaks out on #SheriSangjiChemjobberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15932113680515602275noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-43791327312865939342012-03-19T15:42:22.474-04:002012-03-19T15:42:22.474-04:00I agree re: deterrence. As the Chinese say, you ca...I agree re: deterrence. As the Chinese say, you can 'kill a chicken to scare a monkey'.<br /><br />Also, I agree that the prosecution will win, especially if UCLA/Harran go with the ridiculous "Sangji was a trained professional" line. They should be able to blow that out of the water easily.Chemjobberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15932113680515602275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-44101646153690005582012-03-19T15:32:30.192-04:002012-03-19T15:32:30.192-04:00I think it's a pretty persuasive argument myse...I think it's a pretty persuasive argument myself and I am a chemist. I think one could also argue for a deterrent factor. Just because many academic labs have been lax about safety it doesn't mean it is right or desirable and that this case could send a message for all labs to clean up their act.<br /><br />I am also fascinated with the spin in the highlighted letter. The prosecution will argue that Ms. Sangji was untrained and undersupervised and should not have been allowed to handle the dangerous material. UCLA's and Harran's spin (based on their public statements) is that Ms. Sangji is a trained professional who didn't need supervision and she chose not to take those safety precautions. I'm going to predict that this spin will not be convincing to the jury (if it comes to that).Unstable Isotopenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-85006592387576991482012-03-19T14:34:47.101-04:002012-03-19T14:34:47.101-04:00Prosecutor prosecute. That's what they do. And...Prosecutor prosecute. That's what they do. And this letter shows just that.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04412324900423436763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-81642515810831457372012-03-19T13:26:23.243-04:002012-03-19T13:26:23.243-04:00One man's spin is another man's pathos.One man's spin is another man's pathos.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-54788171275383808792012-03-19T12:33:37.024-04:002012-03-19T12:33:37.024-04:00This exact sentiment was vocalized on this blog, i...This exact sentiment was vocalized on this blog, if I'm not mistaken.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-4281404652714676032012-03-19T11:20:25.253-04:002012-03-19T11:20:25.253-04:00"Spin". Think of what the DA lawyers are..."Spin". Think of what the DA lawyers are actually going to say! The jury is not going to be made up of chemists. I think that this "spin" is going to be their most effective argument. And, I think that it's a spin that the defense knows that they are going to have a tough time effectively argue against to this line of reasoning to a jury. The arguments against this are going to go more technical. This is a great sound-bite. Easy to understand. It will undoubtedly stick with the jury. <br />If the defense were confident that they could effectively argue against this and similar arguments, I don't think that they would be in the bargaining talks that they are currently in. <br /><br />Now ... I don't fully agree with this line of argumentation. I just think that it will be INCREDIBLY effective to a jury of non-chemist peers.Matthttp://sciencegeist.netnoreply@blogger.com