Should Any Court Accept the “Social Authority” Paradigm?

Abstract

Monahan and Walker have proposed that American judges should fundamentally alter the way they receive and assess social science evidence in court, by treating social science research as “law-like” or authoritative when certain professional research criteria are met. Strict application of the stipulated criteria to various kinds of social science research introduced into American and Canadian courts reveals, however, that such research can seldom be considered authoritative in the way Monahan and Walker imagine. Accordingly, as a general rule judges should be reluctant to apply Monahan and Walker’s “social authority” model to the courtroom resolution of difficult questions of social, economic, and cultural or historical facts.

De la mère « normale ». Normes, expertises et justice en protection de la jeunesse

“…Plusieurs remettent en question l'usage de ces expertises dans un objectif de standardisation et de classification visant une généralisation, les analyses de sciences sociales étant intrinsèquement liées au contexte. Dans ce cadre, l'utilisation des statistiques et des échelles visant à réifier des faits particuliers sans considération pour le contexte, parce qu'elle crée une impression de fiabilité et d'infaillibilité, serait particulièrement problématique (Nowlin, 2001;Paciocco, 1999). L'expert des sciences sociales aurait tendance à se faire une opinion en amalgamant plusieurs théories et méthodologies et aurait régulièrement recours au ouï-dire.…”

Without Fear or Favour? Trends and Possibilities in the Canadian Approach to Expert Human Behaviour Evidence

“…127 Much of this social framework evidence does not meet Gold's criteria-largely because it is developed within a different institutional context, for different purposes, from those of physical sciences. 128 A more equitable and useful approach would be for trial judges to invest the time necessary to assess the success and utility of expert opinion evidence according to whether the methodology and theory underpinning the evidence is congruent with the demands of the discipline from which the expert hails. 129 I will return to this suggestion below.…”