Commentary March 6 X rays

Commentary March 6 X rays - this evidence. But it went...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
William Lu James Tracey March 6, 2009 It is quite plausible to see that X-ray images were viewed the same way as photographs. The images were created by an unbiased apparatus similar to the way the camera captured a scene. As said, “Let nature speak for itself.” The camera and X-ray both take pictures and were illustrative, which was basically the argument of prosecution in the court case Smith v. Grant. But they’re forgetting one thing that made photographs so popular, it was that X-ray images were not intuitive compared to photographs which can be seen by the naked eye. There did not exist the all important eye witness as in photographs, which why many judges were reluctant to admit
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: this evidence. But it went through which influenced society as we know it. Physicians had to adopt a new skill which later became called radiologists. To the question of the eye witness, an expert witness would take its role to explain how X-rays worked to the laymen people. Now comes to the question why other technology is not adopted. Lie detectors help the testimony same as X-rays. Though not illustrative, it could still be considered as evidence. Reiterating what Golan said, it is because lie detectors threaten the judicial system as opposed to X-rays and photographs. Despite the threat, if lie detectors were 100% would they then be used in courts?...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 06/30/2010 for the course CAT cat 2 taught by Professor Golan during the Spring '10 term at UCSD.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online