In Redding and Reppucci's “Effects of Lawyers’ Socio-political Attitudes on Their Judgments of Social Science in Legal Decision Making”(1999), they reveal that jurors and judges are more likely to believe a concept that links them with their personal beliefs when they judge expert testimony. They use a variety of psycholegal research studies to imply the law for legally relevant psychological issues. They claim that social evidence is also the scientific evidence, so it should be admitted in courts. Their study explore whether judges’ and law students’ sociopolitical attitudes affect their judgments. They use the death penalty as a subject because it is an important controversial social issue that most people hold strong opinions about. In “Science Law and the Search for Truth in the Courtroom: Lessons from Daubert v. Merrell Dow.”(1994), Bertin and Henifin illustrate that newly developed concepts are instantly at a disadvantage despite the quality of the research. In the article they examine the Daubert case which involved a dispute over whether Bendectin, an anti-nausea drug used during pregnancy, caused birth defects.
Both of the articles demonstrate that there is a gap in the judicial system in the judgment of expert opinion. This gap is posing a threat as it is causing information that is valuable to be ignored and old ideas to be still used. Science and social science in the judicial courts pose unanimous difficulties in the search for truth. In a given case, whether social science or science is used by the defense or the prosecutors, the judge and jury is required to determine the competency of the expert testimony. Both articles question how to make an acccurate assessment, eventhough they are not experts. Both assert that the courts can not make accurate or fair determinations in regards to whether expert testimony is accurate enough to be admitted. Redding and Reppucci learn that many judges do not feel they need social science to make an...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document