1 / 13

LAW AND SCIENCE

LAW AND SCIENCE. Clash or Convergence?. Improve the use of science in policy Educate the judiciary Promote “science literacy” among jurors Address problems re: culture of expert witnesses. Abandon the use of science in law Set policy in legislative process

lurbina
Download Presentation

LAW AND SCIENCE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. LAW AND SCIENCE Clash or Convergence?

  2. Improve the use of science in policy Educate the judiciary Promote “science literacy” among jurors Address problems re: culture of expert witnesses Abandon the use of science in law Set policy in legislative process Judiciary should not be making policy and do not have jurisdiction SCIENCE POLICY

  3. LAW AND SCIENCECOMMON FEATURES • Both claim authority over evidence and conclusions; • Both have a monopoly over what counts as “rational”; • Both control what counts as a credible witness; • Rules sometimes shift massively; • “Normal” science and law are decentralized and silent.

  4. LAW AND SCIENCEDIFFERENCES • Law requires closure; science doesn’t; • Fact-finding in law designed to persuade in short-term; not so in science; • Legal rules are not scientific b/c they have to take into account uncertainty and conflicting evidence; • Law is loyal to the value of justice in ways that can seem counterfactual.

  5. 3 TASKS OF COURTS • Deconstruct expert authority litigation exposes assumptions • Civic education how effective? • Redress wrongs how effective?

  6. What asbestos litigation shows • High transaction costs • Traditional tort system is expensive and cumbersome way to compensate victims and deter manufacturers from producing risky products • Publicity clarified possibilities of mass toxic torts

  7. MASS TOXIC TORTS • Mass • high stakes for victims • huge liability for defendants

  8. TOXIC • Alleged injury caused by toxic substances • Pathways hard to identify • Dosage hard to calibrate • Long latency periods

  9. TORTS • Law of accidents and personal injury • Encode moral dilemmas • Have become more collective over time

  10. TORT LITIGATION • Valuable mechanism of social integration and control • Used to deter risky activities • Used to spread out costs of risk • Meaning varies to plaintiffs, defendants, judges and law students, public

  11. CLASS ACTION SUITS • Agent Orange was first mass toxic tort allowed to proceed as a class action • Consolidate separate (individual) cases • Network of firms • Can disrupt attorney-client relations • Give more power to judges

  12. AGENT ORANGE • 600 ACTIONS • 1500 LAW FIRMS • 15,000 NAMED INDIVIDUALS • 2.4 MILLION VETS, WIVES, CHILDREN • 7 DEFENDANTS, INCL U.S. GOV’T

  13. How can we better regulate risks associated with the technologies we produce?

More Related