Scientific Expertise and Judicial Decision Making: Comparative Insights

Abstract : The legal conformation of science is not universal, as reveals a comparison with the legal system of the United States. Both the French and the American systems are facing the problem of demarcation in forging a legal construction of science. A properly legal epistemology is to be seen in legal rules on expertise. Indeed, determining which expert is allowed to testify in court leads to determining what will count as science in the eyes of the legal system. Selecting scientific experts induces a choice on what might be ranked ‘good science' and what must be termed ‘junk science'. Thus, a plurality of legal constructions of ‘good science' has to be described.
Document type :
Book sections
Complete list of metadatas

https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00337694
Contributor : Olivier Leclerc <>
Submitted on : Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 4:14:06 PM
Last modification on : Thursday, February 7, 2019 - 3:01:51 PM
Long-term archiving on : Monday, June 7, 2010 - 10:49:33 PM

File

Leclerc_Scientific_expertise_0...
Files produced by the author(s)

Identifiers

  • HAL Id : halshs-00337694, version 1

Collections

Citation

Olivier Leclerc. Scientific Expertise and Judicial Decision Making: Comparative Insights. J. Ferrer Beltrán and S. Pozzolo. Law, Politics, and Morality: European Perspectives III. Ethics and Social Justice, Duncker und Humblot, pp.15-26, 2007, Schriften zur Rechtstheorie. ⟨halshs-00337694⟩

Share

Metrics

Record views

193

Files downloads

466