• Confused_Emus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I wanted to go into forensic psychology. But then I took a class on Tuesday nights taught by someone whose day-job was forensic psychology and found out how often you’re likely to get sued just by doing your job (assisting the courts means the losing side will often be pissed at and litigious with you).

    I graduated with my BS in Psychology and promptly accepted an IT job - I have a natural talent with tech and had work experience from my student job as a helpdesk tech for the college. Now I work nights from home doing core network maintenance for an ISP.

    Still trying to figure out if the student loan debt I’m currently buried under was really worth taking on just to get my foot in the door of barely-lucrative employment.

    EDIT: If your career interest can be entered into with trade school or studying for and testing for a few certs, college is a waste of money! Don’t do it!

    • SqueakyBeaver@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      Why the fuck is it legal to sue someone because they assisted the courts? I feel like they should have legal protection unless they massively fucked up

      • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        I guess that’s what the people who are suing are alleging. Like if we imagine they did severely fuck up, and it led to a defendant losing the case, then suing is probably the only way you’d be able to get formal acknowledgement of that fuck up.

        I think it sucks from that angle too, because as someone who has had to litigate against an organisation, it really sucks to have to do, especially when you know you’re in the right.

      • lad@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        There’s the opposite when there’s too much protection: defendant provides an independent expert’s opinion, court provides state approved expert of questionable ethics and professional qualifications but with a correct opinion, i.e. the one that supports the prosecution. And guess who the court will listen to, and that state provided expert is untouchable and has no reason to actually do a good job.