Predefined Criteria and Interpretative Flexibility in Legal Courts’ Evaluation of Expertise

Show full item record



Permalink

http://hdl.handle.net/10138/310753

Citation

Taipale , J 2019 , ' Predefined Criteria and Interpretative Flexibility in Legal Courts’ Evaluation of Expertise ' , Public Understanding of Science , vol. 28 , no. 8 , pp. 883-896 . https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519881338

Title: Predefined Criteria and Interpretative Flexibility in Legal Courts’ Evaluation of Expertise
Author: Taipale, Jaakko
Contributor organization: Sociology
Date: 2019-11-01
Language: eng
Number of pages: 14
Belongs to series: Public Understanding of Science
ISSN: 0963-6625
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519881338
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10138/310753
Abstract: This study examines two different approaches in empirical analysis of judges' evaluation of expertise in court: first, an analyst-based approach that employs predefined normative criteria to measure judges' performance, and second, an actor-based approach that emphasizes interpretative flexibility in judges' evaluation practice. I demonstrate how these different approaches to investigating judges' adjudication lead to differing understandings about judges' abilities to evaluate scientific evidence and testimonial. Although the choice of analytical approach might depend on context and purpose in general, I contend that in assessing judges' competence, an actor-based approach that adequately describes the way in which judges relate to and handle expertise is required to properly understand and explain how judges evaluate expertise. The choice of approach is especially important if the resulting understanding of judges' competence is subsequently used as a basis for making normative and prescriptive claims with potential consequences for trial outcomes.
Subject: 611 Philosophy
5200 Other social sciences
Daubert
DTI
expertise
fMRI
interpretative flexibility
law and science
practice
scientific literacy
traumatic brain injury
SCIENCE
JUDGES
LAW
CREDIBILITY
Peer reviewed: Yes
Rights: unspecified
Usage restriction: openAccess
Self-archived version: acceptedVersion


Files in this item

Total number of downloads: Loading...

Files Size Format View
Taipale_2019_Pr ... se_accepted_manuscript.pdf 82.71Kb PDF View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show full item record