For a better scientific education in courts

A report recommends developing the scientific training of justice actors. Good idea?

The use of scientific expertise in court demands strengthening the training in sciences of the actors of the judicial system. This is one of the conclusions of the report titled “Scientific expertise in court: analysis of ethical issues,” published by the Ethics Committee on Science and Technology (CEST).

The report is based on the work of a committee of experts, composed of professors and researchers from Quebec in philosophy, political science, and law. The committee is chaired by Luc Bégin, an associate professor at the Faculty of Philosophy at Laval University.

The document advocates for updating, harmonizing, and enhancing the training offered to judges, lawyers, and expert witnesses to ensure better training of the actors of the judicial system. Specifically, the report highlights the challenges posed by the use of science in court. In law, the search for truth must lead the court to render a final judgment, while scientific research is an ongoing process over time.

The report warns against the potential prejudicial impact of scientific evidence in law. For example, scientific evidence could have too much influence on laypeople compared to its actual probative value. Also, overly complex evidence could create confusion and require a lengthy examination, even when the stakes of certain disputes do not justify such a mobilization of resources.

It is also noted that the notion of objectivity in science must be nuanced, as it encompasses several dimensions. An analysis should also focus on scientific evidence to determine if it contains cognitive biases.

In addition to strengthening the training of justice actors, the report suggests that the duties of expert witnesses and lawyers should be guided by better use of normative tools, such as codes of conduct or codes of ethics.

The report also recommends evaluating the effect of reforms and initiatives aimed at regulating expert evidence, including introducing provisions in the Quebec civil procedure that regulate the use of joint expertise.

Furthermore, it would be desirable to study possible additional, targeted, and complementary reforms of procedural rules related to expertise, the report points out.