politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Yes, that ought be a legal-requirement.
in https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/how-not-to-die I discovered that a coroner is a person appointed to decide on cause-of-death, but a medical-examiner is a person with a medical-license who has the authority to decide on cause-of-death.
There's no requirement for a coroner to be medically competent.
It's often a political appointee.
That too is a crime against the citizenry & country.
_ /\ _
I think you're misunderstanding the role of the coroner. The medical examiner looks solely at the corpse to determine cause of death. The coroner examines the broader conditions and circumstances surrounding the death.
To understand the difference in the various investigative roles: The medical examiner can determine that the fatal injury was a hammer impact to the back of the skull. They are not legally qualified to determine whether that hammer was swung, dropped, or thrown. They aren't even qualified to determine if a particular hammer was the cause of death.
Forensic pathologists can determine the particular hammer, and whether the hammer was swung or thrown. They are not legally qualified to determine who threw it. They are certainly not qualified to determine why it was thrown.
The coroner can determine who did the throwing. They are not legally qualified to determine whether the act of throwing the hammer was justified or criminal. (If it was thrown to stop the deceased from attacking a victim, for example. The coroner is not qualified to make this determination.)
The trial court can legally determine that the hammer was thrown with intent to kill. The criminal trial court can determine if that intention was justified or not; whether the defendant committed a crime. The civil trial court can determine how much harm the victim's family has suffered.
Another example, this time drawn from real life: in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, the medical examiner can determine that the deceased died from smoke inhalation. The medical examiner cannot determine who is responsible for the fire. The coroner can call for an inquest. They can convene a jury. And they can legally determine that responsibility for the fire lies with the owners.
There is no particular need for a coroner to be medically licensed, provided they are not personally expected to perform an autopsy. Where they are not medically licensed, they cannot conduct their own autopsies, and must instead rely on medical examiners for that one small piece of evidence.
It would be more appropriate for a coroner to be licensed to practice law, rather than medicine.
I really enjoyed how well you explained this, as someone without any understanding or exposure to this stuff I feel like I came away from it with a broad surface level understanding that made coherent sense. You articulate things really well.
Thank you!
I should stress that my explanation is a gross simplification, and some of my examples might be a little off. Further, the specific role varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
The key takeaway: The role of the coroner is (generally) closer to that of the prosecutor than it is to that of the medical examiner.