Judges’ socio-technical review of contested expertise

Taipale, Jaakko

doi:10.1177/0306312719854538

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The eleven verdicts, each on average over 40 pages in length, were analysed as part of a larger study that investigates medical expertise in court (Taipale, 2019).The verdicts were coded twice, first with Atlas.ti software, and then by categorizing the once-coded data with the Daubert criteria.…”

Section: Methodology and Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because judges lack scientific training and expertise in the deep sense as defined earlier, judges take a pragmatic approach to controlling the epistemic uncertainty caused by inconclusive and contested expert evidence (Taipale, 2019). This uncertainty can also be conceptualized as high prevalence of interpretative flexibility in the presented evidence.…”

Section: Limited Understanding Of Expertisementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Predefined criteria and interpretative flexibility in legal courts’ evaluation of expertise

Taipale

2019

Public Underst Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Methodology and Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Limited Understanding Of Expertisementioning

confidence: 99%

Predefined criteria and interpretative flexibility in legal courts’ evaluation of expertise

Taipale

2019

Public Underst Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[9] Furthermore, in an empirical case study consisting of a sample of 11 Helsinki district court verdicts from 2014-2017, which features a medical controversy concerning traumatic brain injury (TBI) diagnostics, it was noted that the difficulties judges face in evaluating the medical expertise result from epistemic asymmetries between legal and medical professionals, which reinforce the uncertainty of judicial decisions. [10] As a result of the judges' low business quality and ability, they do not have the ability to link the legal provisions with the case for rational thinking, resulting in a lapse of judgment and improper ruling and leading to uncertainty in the outcome of the case.…”

Section: The Quality and Competence Of Judicial Adjudicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Influence of Judicial Adjudicators on the Uncertainty of Judicial Decisions

Chen¹,

Zang²

2021

HSS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the fundamental values of the existence of justice is that it psychologically satisfies the human need for stability and certainty, so that imbalances of power and responsibility can be balanced and disputes can be settled. Judicial justice is reflected in the entire process of judicial adjudication, which is subject to uncertainty. Between the two major uncertainties of judicial adjudication -the uncertainty of the rules of judicial adjudication and the uncertainty of the decision of judicial adjudicators -this article focuses on the latter by classifying and analyzing two major aspects, namely internal and external factors. As individuals in the secular world, judicial adjudicators have different knowledge backgrounds, various levels of experience and competence, distinctive institutional deficiencies, and dissimilar motivations for their interests, so that they perceive and apply the rules of adjudication differently, resulting in different outcomes, thus leading to the uncertainty of judicial adjudication. It is of course necessary for judges to maintain their independence, enforce the law strictly and administer justice impartially, and contribute to the establishment of a society governed by the rule of law, but it is even more necessary for us to create conditions to enhance judicial independence and impartiality through judicial reform, so as to reduce the uncertainty of judicial decisions. This paper proposes some countermeasures on how to reduce the uncertainty of judicial adjudication.

show abstract

“…Judges and juries are not objective fact finders, but actively participate in the process of knowledge making and credibility construction through their practice of excluding or allowing expert testimonies and reports, asking questions, summarizing testimonies, and rendering judgments. 27 To become convinced of the validity of expert knowledge is therefore not a passive process but an active engagement with the materials and their constructed meaning during legal proceedings. 28 Consequently, we approach expertise as a process of negotiation before and during the legal process.…”

Section: Cutting and Convincing: The Making Of Credible Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…6 An extended discussion of the definition of the offence in statute is presented later in this article. 7 See, for example, the recent debate in the Dutch parliament that involved several experts discussing the status of different armed groups fighting in Syria: see Commissie Buitenlandse Zaken, 'Nederlandse Steun aan Gewapende Syrische Oppositie' Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal, 27 or unmakes, the credibility of scientific evidence in the courtroom'. 8 Through her work on scientific knowledge -including environmental and medical expertise -Jasanoff shows that the acceptance or rejection of the testimony of particular experts is often one of the most contentious aspects of a trial, and that it takes hard work to make materials and experts appear before a court.…”

Section: Introduction: Islamic State Money and Terrorism Expertisementioning

confidence: 99%

From contestation to conviction: terrorism expertise before the courts

Anwar

Goede

2021

Journal of Law and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article asks how terrorism expertise has been mobilized in recent trials on terrorism financing. How is expert knowledge concerning ongoing and complex political situations involving alleged terrorism translated into factual evidence before a court of law? What kind of sources do courts use in terrorism cases, and what kind of expert knowledge is acknowledged or ignored? Through analysis of concrete cases under the United Kingdom (UK) Terrorism Act ( 2000) and the Dutch penal law Article 421Sr, we show how contested terrorism expertise becomes 'certified knowledge' that holds together as grounds for conviction before a court of law. This article contributes to socio-legal debates on legal knowledge in two ways. First, we analyse the everyday, material practices of gathering, presenting, and contesting expertise in relation to security. Second, the article analyses new case material and a particular kind of knowledge -namely, security knowledge and terrorism expertise -to identify patterns in what is deemed relevant for the court.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

show abstract

Judges’ socio-technical review of contested expertise

Cited by 10 publications

References 30 publications

Predefined criteria and interpretative flexibility in legal courts’ evaluation of expertise

Predefined criteria and interpretative flexibility in legal courts’ evaluation of expertise

The Influence of Judicial Adjudicators on the Uncertainty of Judicial Decisions

From contestation to conviction: terrorism expertise before the courts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About