|Upload User:||mr divine|
The volume also highlights two original first-of-their-kind surveys: on what motivates distinguished scientists and engineers to participate in the legal system — and what their experiences were like — and on the effects of different presentations of fingerprint evidence to juries.
Lempert discuss the tensions and areas of overlapping interest at the interface of science and the legal system. Courts routinely resolve factual disputes in science in the law to settling legal controversies, and such fact-finding frequently involves scientific and technical evidence. Each kind of decision offers a window into judicial common sense, a relatively neglected topic in studies of law and science.
When it comes to science and technology, Supreme Court justices are often ill-equipped to grasp fully the implications of the cases they are asked to decide on scientific subjects. In recent years, states wishing to curb abortion access have claimed health justifications for placing novel and onerous restrictions on abortion providers.
Hellerstedtthe Court invalidated a Texas law on the ground that the claimed health benefits were insufficient to justify the predictably massive shrinkage of the medical infrastructure necessary for women to get an abortion. Evidence-based law met evidence-based medicine in a decision that demonstrated a new willingness by the Court to insist on good science in the area of abortion, and perhaps beyond.The term law has diverse usage in many cases approximate, accurate, broad, or narrow across all fields of natural science physics , chemistry , biology , geology , astronomy , etc. As with other kinds of scientific knowledge, laws do not have absolute certainty as mathematical theorems or identities do , and it is always possible for a law to be contradicted, restricted, or extended by future observations. Scientific laws summarize the results of experiments or observations, usually within a certain range of application. Laws are developed from data and can be further developed through mathematics ; in all cases they are directly or indirectly based on empirical evidence. Scientific laws or laws of science are statements that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena. It is generally understood that they implicitly reflect, though they do not explicitly assert, causal relationships fundamental to reality, and are discovered rather than invented. In general, the accuracy of a law does not change when a new theory of the relevant phenomenon is worked out, but rather the scope of the law's application, since the mathematics or statement representing the law does not change.
Sound legal decision-making frequently requires the assistance of scientists and engineers. Lempert glean what motivates participation or refusal to assist in legal proceedings when asked. The survey reveals that the majority will agree to participate when asked, and when they turn down requests, the most common reasons are lack of time and absence of relevant expertise, although dissatisfaction with legal procedures is also a deterrent.
Respondents also evaluated suggested structural changes that might increase their willingness to participate. Access the online methodological appendix to the survey here. Neuroscience has the potential to break down the division in law between physiological and psychological harm and between physical and mental injury. Jules Lobel and Huda Akil analyze the recent use of neuroscience in evaluating the harm caused by prolonged solitary confinement to show how scientific knowledge can illuminate this complex legal issue.
The Bayh-Dole Act of allowed nonprofits and small businesses to own patents on inventions resulting from federally funded research. Although universities helped get the Act through Congress, the primary goal was not to benefit universities but to promote the commercial development and utilization of federally funded inventions. But universities seem to have lost sight of this distinction.
Rebecca S. Eisenberg and Robert Cook-Deegan argue that universities — acting as patent seekers, patent enforcers, and patent policy stakeholders — often work against the commercialization goals of the Bayh-Dole Act in pursuit of increased revenue. Inaccurate eyewitness testimony is a leading cause of wrongful convictions. As early asthe U. Supreme Court recognized this danger, but distinguishing reliable from unreliable eyewitness testimony was based largely on surmise. Jed S. Rakoff and Elizabeth F.
Loftus explain that while significant improvements can be made to lineups, photo arrays, and other identification procedures, limitations of human perception, memory, and psychology often raise intractable barriers to accurate eyewitness testimony. One response is to sensitize jurors to the limitations of eyewitness identifications, but research has produced mixed results, with some studies showing that it helps jurors discriminate between good and bad eyewitness evidence, and other showing that it merely creates overall skepticism.
Forensic science is at a crossroads. In the last two decades, pattern evidence, like fingerprint, tool mark, and bite mark identification, has faced significant criticism for lacking adequate scientific validation or proven reliability. But the law, where so much relies on precedent, science in the law been resistant to accepting new scientific findings. Jennifer L.
Fingerprint evidence can be extremely incriminating. But it is unclear how the description of fingerprint evidence by the examiner influences the weight lay jurors assign to it. Joseph B. Kadane and Jonathan J. Koehler describe their experiment that tested how lay people responded to different presentations of fingerprint evidence in a hypothetical criminal case.
They found that people attached more weight to the evidence when the fingerprint examiner indicated that he believed or knew that the defendant was the source of the print. When the examiner science in the law a weaker, but more scientifically justifiable, conclusion, the evidence was given less weight.
The authors conclude by considering implications for ongoing reform efforts. While a major goal of any litigation is to arrive at a correct outcome, proceedings involving expert testimony can muddy the waters. Nancy Gertner and Joseph Sanders discuss changes to typical adversarial processes that might improve trial accuracy without disrupting the overall structure, such science in the law 1 alterations to the organization of the trial, including concurrent expert testimony; 2 alterations to the role of the jury, including taking notes, asking questions, and receiving written expert reports; and 3 formal expert witness codes of conduct designed to better arm experts to resist the adversarial pressures that lead to biased testimony.
Courts were not designed to consider the increasingly complex scientific and technical evidence needed to resolve contemporary legal disputes; party control of the presentation of evidence places great strain on the judge and jury. Daniel L. Rubinfeld and Joe S. The role of the expert witness in trials is a paradox. Judges and jurors need expert witnesses to help with matters beyond their understanding, yet judges are expected to act as gatekeepers to ensure that jurors are not fooled by misleading expert testimony.
As gatekeepers, judges might not effectively distinguish sound from unsound expert testimony. Valerie P. Hans and Michael J. Saks suggest a variety of solutions to this issue, ranging from more effective ways of presenting technical information at trial and educational interventions supervised by the court, to more controversial measures, such as replacing conventional juries with special juries and replacing generalist judges with expert judges. Opportunities for members of the scientific and legal communities to engage in ongoing consideration of issues at the interface of science and law are limited.
In the late s, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine established the Committee on Science, Technology, and Law CSTL — composed of equal numbers of members from science, engineering, and law — to provide a forum that would build links between these communities. David Baltimore, David S. Fall The Public Face of Science. Shari Seidman Diamond and Richard O.
Back to browse all issues. When scientists appear in court today, they are not being prosecuted for their scientific views, but what science tells them may be ignored or, worse, faulty analyses may prove more convincing than sound science.
Show: All Free Only. Author Sheila Jasanoff. Author Linda Greenhouse. Authors Jules Lobel and Huda Akil. Authors Rebecca S. Eisenberg and Robert Cook-Deegan. The Intractability of Inaccurate Eyewitness Identification Inaccurate eyewitness testimony is a leading cause of wrongful convictions. Authors Jed S. Author Jennifer L. Authors Joseph B. Alternatives to Traditional Adversary Methods of Presenting Scientific Expertise in the Legal System While a major goal of any litigation is to arrive at a correct outcome, proceedings involving expert testimony can muddy the waters.
Authors Nancy Gertner and Joseph Sanders.
Scientists as Experts Serving the Court Courts were not designed to consider the increasingly complex scientific and technical evidence needed to resolve contemporary legal disputes; party control of the presentation of evidence places great strain on the judge and jury.
Authors Daniel L. Authors Valerie P. Bridging the Science-Law Divide Opportunities for members of the scientific and legal communities to engage in ongoing consideration of issues at the interface of science and law are limited.
Authors David BaltimoreDavid S. Tateland Anne-Marie Mazza.