Social science research and experimentation in Australian criminal proceedings: prejudicial pre-trial publicity and psychological research.
Using the decision of Barr J in Attorney-General (NSW) v John Fairfax Publications [1999] NSWSC 318, the authors analyse the need for external validity and relevance in social science evidence adduced in the courts. They argue in favour of the rigour employed within Barr J's judgment and contend that a constructive legacy of the decision should be a greater sensitisation on the part of researchers to the kinds of factors that can distance experimental scenarios from curial contexts to a point where generalisations from the former become strained and even spurious. A number of these considerations have the potential to be addressed to a significant extent by improved methodologies. However, the authors warn against an excess of purist fervour in demanding complete comparability of scenarios, lest the fruits of social science be denied to the courts and decision-making be adversely affected by the absence of expert insights falling short of complete replication of conditions between experiments and forensic reality.
Monash University, Australia. I.Freckelton@latrobe.edu.au
Ian
I
Freckelton
Marilyn
M
McMahon
D001315:Australia; D003416:Criminal Law / Q000592:standards*; D003657:Decision Making; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine; D005104:Expert Testimony / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006801:Humans; D012106:Research / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D012107:Research Design; D012942:Social Sciences / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*