Evaluating Scientific Evidence: An Interdisciplinary Framework for Intellectual Due Process
Cambridge University Press, 2007 - 254 páginas
Scientific evidence is crucial in a burgeoning number of litigated cases, legislative enactments, regulatory decisions, and scholarly arguments. Evaluating Scientific Evidence explores the question of what counts as scientific knowledge, a question that has become a focus of heated courtroom and scholarly debate, not only in the United States, but in other common law countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia. Controversies are rife over what is permissible use of genetic information, whether chemical exposure causes disease, whether future dangerousness of violent or sexual offenders can be predicted, whether such time-honored methods of criminal identification (such as microscopic hair analysis, for example) have any better foundation than ancient divination rituals, among other important topics. This book examines the process of evaluating scientific evidence in both civil and criminal contexts, and explains how decisions by nonscientists that embody scientific knowledge can be improved.
Comentarios de la gente - Escribir un comentario
No encontramos ningún comentario en los lugares habituales.
Triers of science
What is intellectual due process?
A framework for analysis
Toxic torts and the causation conundrum
Criminal identification evidence
Future dangerousness testimony The epistemology of prediction
Barefoot or Daubert? A cognitive perspective on vetting future dangerousness testimony
Otras ediciones - Ver todas
admissibility admitted analysis animal arguing argument assessment assumptions basis battered woman behavior belief biases capital causation cause chemical choice citing cognitive common conclusions confidence context courts criminal dangerousness Daubert death decision defendant demonstrate determination discussing disease effect empirical error evaluating evidence examine example excluded expert testimony explaining exposure factors facts failed federal finding fingerprint force forensic frequently future given heuristics human hypothesis identification important increased individual issue judges judgment jurors jury Justice knowledge laboratory mean method observing particular percent person population predictions presented probability problem PSYCHOL question rational reasoning relevant reliability reports requirement response risk rules sample scientific scientific validity scientists self-defense sentencing significance social standards statistical studies subjects Supp supra note syndrome testify testing theory tort trial underlying validity violence women