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

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Taipale, Jaakko
dc.date.accessioned 2020-01-31T08:54:02Z
dc.date.available 2020-01-31T08:54:02Z
dc.date.issued 2019-11-01
dc.identifier.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
dc.identifier.other PURE: 126863879
dc.identifier.other PURE UUID: 7a9d5ebb-5c64-45bf-98f8-00592d9b10e3
dc.identifier.other WOS: 000495120500002
dc.identifier.other ORCID: /0000-0003-1590-2499/work/64977874
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10138/310753
dc.description.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. en
dc.format.extent 14
dc.language.iso eng
dc.relation.ispartof Public Understanding of Science
dc.rights unspecified
dc.rights.uri info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject 611 Philosophy
dc.subject 5200 Other social sciences
dc.subject Daubert
dc.subject DTI
dc.subject expertise
dc.subject fMRI
dc.subject interpretative flexibility
dc.subject law and science
dc.subject practice
dc.subject scientific literacy
dc.subject traumatic brain injury
dc.subject SCIENCE
dc.subject JUDGES
dc.subject LAW
dc.subject CREDIBILITY
dc.title Predefined Criteria and Interpretative Flexibility in Legal Courts’ Evaluation of Expertise en
dc.type Article
dc.contributor.organization Sociology
dc.description.reviewstatus Peer reviewed
dc.relation.doi https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519881338
dc.relation.issn 0963-6625
dc.rights.accesslevel openAccess
dc.type.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 simple item record