Overcoming obstacles to experiments in legal practice
Overcoming obstacles to experiments in legal practice
复制标题
克服法律实践中的实验障碍
DOI：
10.1126/science.aay3005
复制
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
影响因子：
56.9
通讯作者：
Itai Cohen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
H. F. Lynch;D. Greiner;Itai Cohen
最大的伦理担忧是未能寻求可靠证据来指导法律行业。从俄勒冈医疗补助实验到为解决全球贫困问题所做的努力（该努力获得了2019年诺贝尔奖），基于实验方法的循证政策的重要性日益得到认可。在过去几十年中，有人试图将这种科学方法扩展到法律制度和实践中。然而，尽管在实证法律研究和实验性社会政策研究方面取得了进展，法官、律师和法律服务提供者往往未能对自身的实践进行实证研究，也没有以实证数据为指导，尤其反感随机对照试验（RCT）。这令人不安，因为许多对法律实践及其所影响的人至关重要的问题，比如律师服务的分配、保释决定以及强制调解的使用，都能够而且应该有严格的证据基础作为依据。尽管进行法律实践随机对照试验存在实际障碍，但它们也受到法律行业内部文化障碍的阻碍。医学从业者被期望对其执业行为进行随机研究并依赖所产生的数据，而法律实践的默认做法是依赖经验、常识和专业判断，且往往是在当事人自由受限的情况下。为了解决由这种文化差异引发的伦理问题，我们借鉴生物医学和政策研究的经验教训，以及司法救助实验室（A2JL）的经验，该实验室是一个推动使用随机对照试验为法律实践提供信息的领先机构。
The biggest ethical concern is failing to seek reliable evidence to guide the legal profession The importance of evidence-based policy rooted in experimental methods is increasingly recognized, from the Oregon Medicaid experiment to the efforts to address global poverty that were awarded a 2019 Nobel Prize. Over the past several decades, there have been attempts to extend this scientific approach to legal systems and practice. Yet, despite progress in empirical legal studies and experimental social policy research, judges, lawyers, and legal services providers often fail to subject their own practices to empirical study or to be guided by empirical data, with a particular aversion to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (1). This is troubling, as many questions fundamental to legal practice and those it affects, such as allocation of attorney services, bail decisions, and use of mandatory mediation, could and should be informed by a rigorous evidentiary foundation. Although there are practical obstacles to undertaking legal practice RCTs, they have also been stymied by cultural barriers within the legal profession. Whereas medical practitioners are expected to subject their practices to randomized study and rely on the data produced, the default in legal practice is to rely on experience, common wisdom, and professional judgment, often in settings in which clients face constraints on their freedom. To address ethical concerns stemming from this cultural difference, we draw on lessons from biomedical and policy research, as well as experiences of the Access to Justice Lab (A2JL), a leading institution promoting the use of RCTs to inform legal practice.