Cargando…

Scientific Thinking About Legal Truth

In the criminal process, the fact finders assess the validity of impressions reported by witnesses based on their perceptions and determine what has happened in reality. However, these impressions are not subject to any external validity check. The Innocence Project revealed the failure of this subj...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Rosenzweig, Gal
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9298174/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35874415
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.918282
_version_ 1784750644236648448
author Rosenzweig, Gal
author_facet Rosenzweig, Gal
author_sort Rosenzweig, Gal
collection PubMed
description In the criminal process, the fact finders assess the validity of impressions reported by witnesses based on their perceptions and determine what has happened in reality. However, these impressions are not subject to any external validity check. The Innocence Project revealed the failure of this subjective method and showed how it can lead to innocent convictions. The legal literature has examined ways to manage the risk of mistakes, but these ways are inconsistent with the scientific understanding of the need for external validity measurements, suggesting the need for new ways of thinking about the legal search for truth and justice.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9298174
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92981742022-07-21 Scientific Thinking About Legal Truth Rosenzweig, Gal Front Psychol Psychology In the criminal process, the fact finders assess the validity of impressions reported by witnesses based on their perceptions and determine what has happened in reality. However, these impressions are not subject to any external validity check. The Innocence Project revealed the failure of this subjective method and showed how it can lead to innocent convictions. The legal literature has examined ways to manage the risk of mistakes, but these ways are inconsistent with the scientific understanding of the need for external validity measurements, suggesting the need for new ways of thinking about the legal search for truth and justice. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-07-06 /pmc/articles/PMC9298174/ /pubmed/35874415 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.918282 Text en Copyright © 2022 Rosenzweig. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Psychology
Rosenzweig, Gal
Scientific Thinking About Legal Truth
title Scientific Thinking About Legal Truth
title_full Scientific Thinking About Legal Truth
title_fullStr Scientific Thinking About Legal Truth
title_full_unstemmed Scientific Thinking About Legal Truth
title_short Scientific Thinking About Legal Truth
title_sort scientific thinking about legal truth
topic Psychology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9298174/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35874415
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.918282
work_keys_str_mv AT rosenzweiggal scientificthinkingaboutlegaltruth