Science seeks empirical truths regardless of their implications, and scientists ideally share in a common truth-seeking mission.
Science seeks empirical truths regardless of their implications, and scientists ideally share in a common truth-seeking mission.Tags: Business Plan Template SoftwareClinic Business PlanEssays Titanic MovieConcrete Details In EssayPart Of A Research PaperQuotes To Know For Sat EssayWell Written Cover Letter
Medical testimony is still the most common form of scientific expertise presented in court, but expert advice on legal matters has expanded exponentially, reflecting the enormous range of scientific knowledge that modern scholarship has produced.
Although recognizing the need for scientific assistance, judges soon learned that sources claiming scientific expertise did not always agree.
Yet the legal system then as now needed to resolve the dispute between the parties, and the scientific evidence offered was the best they had to work with.
As the trial system and the law of evidence developed, courts and juries have continued to struggle to make use of the conflicting expert advice they receive.
Good science often involves the withholding of judgment until more evidence has accumulated.
The law requires that decisions be reached upon the conclusion of trials regardless of gaps in the available evidence.The third essay provides a perspective from the other side of the law-science divide.It presents the first published survey results from a sample of distinguished scientific and engineering experts who were asked about their views of the legal system and about their participation in it (or not).As in Salem, claims of expertise have often been questioned and objections raised about the bases of expert knowledge.Expertise, then and now, did not have to be based on science; but the importance of science and the testimony of scientific experts has since medieval times been woven into the fabric of the English jurisprudence that Americans inherited.Often in modern litigation, the law must be informed by scientific evidence as communicated by the views of the scientists who present it.These are typically experts chosen and paid by parties because, regardless of the law’s needs, scientists, with rare exceptions, cannot be forced to contribute what they know.The essays in this volume deal with tensions and areas of overlapping interest at the interface of science and the legal system.Many of the essays are written by scientist-lawyer teams.Previewing the essays that follow–many of which were written by scientist-lawyer teams, or authors who are themselves both scientists and legal scholars–Diamond and Lempert divide the issue into three sections: “Connecting Science and Law”; “Accommodation or Collision: When Science and Law Meet”; and “Communicating Science in Court.” Through the insights offered and solutions suggested throughout the issue, Diamond and Lempert remain optimistic about future collaboration between science and law.Shari Seidman Diamond, a Fellow of the American Academy since 2012, is the Howard J.