Effects of Expert Science and Technology Testimony in the Legal System

专家科技证言在法律体系中的作用

• 批准号: 9317646
• 负责人: Joel Cooper
• 金额: $ 7万
• 依托单位: Princeton University
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Standard Grant
• 财政年份: 1993
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 1993-10-01 至 1996-03-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=9317646&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: Effects; Expert; Science; Technology; Testimony

WPC2 2 B V T W #| x 10 pitch z N x x x , x @ ; HP LaserJet Series II (Additional) HLSEIIAD.PRS x @ 0 Z 2 5 V G W Courier 10 pitch z N x x x , x @ ; HP LaserJet Series II (Additional) HLSEIIAD.PRS x @ 0 Z 2 ( J 0 #| x 9317646 COOPER In our society, the legal system is where many decisions that affect the implementation of technology arise. This study a step in determining how such decisions are made and what their impact is on the creation and implementation of technological innovation. Technological and scientific innovations that are supported by good data can withstand legal tests provided that scientific and technological testimony introduced into courts of law or other legal proceedings can be understood by lay jurors and judges. If not, juries and judges are likely to make decisions on scientific and technological matters on grounds that may be at variance with expert testimony. In addition to being potentially unjust, the fear that such an event might occur may cause technologically based companies to refrain from introducing innovations. This is a study of the production, delivery and reception of expert scientific/technological testimony. The research is divided into two phases. The first phase assesses the degree to which industry is concerned about not being able to convince the judicial system of the scientific and technological underpinnings of its innovations and consequently errs on the conservative side in producing such innovations. This will be accomplished using focus groups composed of individuals from relevant professions, patent attorneys, and technical managers. The second phase is an experimental research approach to unders tanding some of the issues involved in presenting complex scientific and technological testimony to lay juries. Using the methods of experimental social psychology, the studies test hypotheses derived from theories of attitude change. It is predicted that jurors or other decision makers may not always be able to comprehend the scientific and technological testimony of experts. Consequently, rather than attempt to process the arguments, the decision makers avail themselves of peripheral or heuristic decision rules. For example, they may base their decisions on the background of the expert rather than the substance of the expert's arguments. In the experiments, juror subjects watch a videotape recreation of a civil trial involving the expert testimony. The first two experiments examine the effects of complexity of the testimony and whether increased complexity does indeed drive jurors to rely on peripheral cues when making decisions. The third experiment tackles the question of the persuasiveness of paid expert witnesses and examines the hypothesis that, regardless of the validity of testimony, experts are discounted relative to an expert selected by the court.

WPC2 2 B V 不 W #|X 10节距 z N x x x， X @ ; HP LaserJet Series II（其他） HLSEIIAD.PRS X @ 0 Z 2 5 V G W 10节距 z N x x x， X @ ; HP LaserJet Series II（其他） HLSEIIAD.PRS X @ 0 Z 2 ( J 0 #|X 在我们的社会中，法律的系统是许多影响技术实施的决定出现的地方。 这项研究的一个步骤，以确定如何作出这样的决定，以及它们的影响是什么创造和实施的技术创新。有良好数据支持的科技创新能够经受住法律的考验 只要在法庭或其他法律的程序中引入的科学和技术证据能够为非专业陪审员和法官所理解。 否则，陪审团和法官就可能根据与专家证词不一致的理由就科学和技术事项作出裁决。 除了潜在的不公正之外，对这种事件可能发生的恐惧可能会导致技术公司不进行创新。 这是一项关于专家科学/技术证词的制作、提供和接受的研究。 研究分为两个阶段。 第一阶段评估工业界在多大程度上担心无法使司法系统相信其创新的科学和技术基础，因此在进行这种创新时过于保守。 这将通过由相关专业人员、专利律师和技术经理组成的焦点小组来完成。 第二阶段是一个实验性的研究方法，以unders tanding的一些问题，涉及提出复杂的科学和技术的证词，以奠定陪审团。 本研究运用实验社会心理学的方法，检验了态度改变理论的假设。 据预测，陪审员或其他决策者可能并不总是能够理解专家的科学和技术证词。 因此，决策者利用外围的或启发式的决策规则，而不是试图处理这些论点。 例如，他们可能根据专家的背景而不是专家论点的实质内容作出决定。 在实验中，陪审员受试者观看了一盘涉及专家证词的民事审判录像带。 前两个实验考察了证词复杂性的影响，以及复杂性的增加是否确实会促使陪审员在做出决定时依赖于外围线索。 第三个实验处理的问题，有报酬的专家证人的说服力，并检查假设，无论证词的有效性，专家是相对于法院选择的专家打折扣。