The Use of Scientific Methods to Study the Law - Coursework Example

Is it useful to use scientific methods to study the law? In answering the question “What is law?” Saint Augustine d: “Lex iniustanon est lex” (Unjust law is not law). This attributes a moral dimension to the law, which is disputed in the positivist approach that postulates legal validity as being conditioned by social facts rather than moral content. When applying a scientific approach to a study of law, the basic premise that holds good is the existence of certain immutable principles that condition our understanding of reality. According to Hans Kelson, the “law functions as a scheme of interpretation”1 and it is that system or set of rules that orders the manner in which we view the world. Hence the study of law, when applied from a scientific perspective, will involve the discovery of those basic principles that remain unchanging and since science is based upon reason and objectivity rather than subjective or strictly moral aspects, the scientific approach will accord greater weight to facts and reason. Scientific methods involve the formulation of hypotheses that form the basis for experimentation in order to discover their truth. Similarly, scientific study applied to law must rely upon a study of the rules that form the basis of the law and their relevance in the human context is to be determined through precedents and judicial interpretation. Natural law: Dworkin subscribes to the view that the law is a seamless system within which there will be found a relevant solution for every possible legal problem2, conforming to the views of proponents of natural law, which uses a teleological framework to study the law. However, Aristotle states that it is man’s reason which motivates him to naturally live in communication with other men3. Natural law comprises man’s participation in the divine law and therefore, natural law postulates that there are some higher principles that exist, which are unchanging and they may be gleaned by man through the application of his reason. Locke however, disputes this and he believes that man’s knowledge is completely fashioned by his experiences, following the empiricist pattern. Since the source of all knowledge is centered upon man’s experiences, the varying nature of those experiences – conditioned by the varying levels of perception, will determine the reliability and validity of knowledge and its degree of certainty. Some things may be certain based upon their cause being certain – arising out of the primary quality of the object, while some may be highly probable but not certain, “but this is but probability not knowledge.”4 Lowe has suggested that the significance of Locke’s essay on understanding lies in the fact that it provides Locke’s conception of the relationship between philosophy and science – he states that Locke saw “philosophy as having a critical function, adjudicating knowledge claims rather than providing their source5. The Marxist approach: Marx believed that the existing values in a society cannot be examined out of their historical context and in order to derive true insight and a rational perspective, it is necessary for man to look back on history without ascribing any moral standards.6 Therefore in contrast to the social sciences that look into social life in terms of various separate aspects, historical materialism as propounded by Karl Marx is a science that examines society’s development from all perspectives and as a whole, taking into account the inter connection and development between the various aspects.7 Based upon this outlook, Marx was therefore convinced that human history is governed by scientific laws that cannot be altered. It is not governed by ideas. But man through conditioning by the material world, begins to understand his position in the world and submits to rules of social development which are in fact, nothing more than that of one social class exploiting another class in order to achieve material gain.8 He is in accord with the Naturalists to the extent that these natural laws are immutable and unchanging, much in the same manner that scientific realities are deemed to be unchanging. Application of a scientific perspective to the principles underlying law: When applying the scientific approach to evaluating a particular case, there may be a general hypothesis that will be applied, i.e, the rule or piece of legislation, however a true assessment of the case will involve the analysis of the available facts and information rather than analyzing their moral sources. A scientific method involves four separate steps: (a) observation of the natural phenomena (b) postulating a hypothesis about the phenomenon (c) a prediction about what results are likely to be achieved if such hypothesis is indeed true and (d) carrying out experiments to prove or disprove the hypothesis. In this way, it is possible to arrive at an idea of the natural realities of the Universe. In a similar way, a scientific study of law will involve the application of certain basic principles in the form of laws and their application will constitute the experimentation phase during which their validity can be determined and modified as necessary. Dworkin distinguishes between the rules that constitute the law and the principles that are used in the application of the law as follows: “Rules are applicable in an all or nothing fashion…..either the rule is valid in which case the answer it supplies must be accepted or it is not….but this is not the way principles operate…..[a principle] states a reason that argues in one direction but does not necessitate a particular decision.”9 Therefore, on this basis, Dworkin advances the proposition that in deciding difficult cases for which no effective legislation is found to exist, judges may invoke legal principles that are derived from a broad based framework of principles, which must also be considered to be equivalent to law although they may suggest rather than force a particular outcome. If a scientific approach is used, the principle framing the law itself must be a valid one. If Aristotle’s principle that is man’s reason that motivates him to frame and obey the law in accordance with divine immutable principles, holds good, then the law itself would stand upon a solid immutable principle. For example, Pappe has discussed a case known as the “grudge informer” case and argued about the validity of the Nazi law itself10. Would a law holding that a person making statements about Hitler would be punishable with death be valid in terms of being based on a constant, unchanging foundation? The Hitler law would qualify as a contravention of all the natural principles of the Universe, which according to naturalists are conditioned by man’s reason and are immutable and unchanging. The inhuman Hitler law was obviously one that was untenable. Although Hart separated morality from the law, nevertheless he also ascribed to the view that a basic core of good was essential in order to justify a law and make it relevant and applicable. The law is based upon facts and these facts cannot be accurately and scientifically assessed from the framework of wrong underlying principles. Dworkin cites the case of Riggs v Palmer11 as an example of the moral framework that forms the basis of application of principles when deciding hard cases. In this case, a defendant who killed his father due to the fear that he might change his will and disinherit him, was considered to have committed an immoral act that could not be condoned although from a legal perspective, the defendant had every right to inherit the property. Dworkin states that the Court decided the case on the basis of “the principle that no man may profit from his own wrong as a background standard against which to read the statute of wills.”12 The Court therefore applied the underlying principles of the law – the moral base that had fashioned the law, rather than a strict application of the law itself. In this case, the application of only the facts would have produced a result that would not have yielded justice according to the immutable principles that underlie the law. Therefore, in some instances, it may be necessary to move beyond the strictly scientific interpretation in order to incorporate the principles upon which said law is based. New scientific techniques and miscarriage of justice: Science has proved to be very valuable in the development of advanced forms of evidence that enhance the reliability of the facts surrounding a case. Some of these techniques include DNA analysis, using trace evidence and forensic analysis which have helped to pinpoint the true criminals in some cases. Yezzi categorizes the following to be examples of good, reliable evidence: (a) Direct observations of immediate surroundings (b) scientific theories and claims that have been proved and substantiated (c) the testimony of experts (d) authoritative sources of information such as encyclopedias, almanacs, industrial reports, documentaries, etc (e) rational, common sense claims that are mainly logical truths and (f) that which is regarded as common knowledge by everyone.10 These new and improved techniques of forensic evidence are also revealing the fact that in several cases, people have been wrongfully convicted through faulty forensic evidence.11 Such improved techniques have also helped bring new evidence to light which may not have been available at the time of a trail where there was a miscarriage of justice, or where the evidence may have been faultily interpreted. The case of Sally Clark and Angela Canning12 is an example of the miscarriage of justice that occurred due to misuse of expert testimony and evidence by scientific experts. In this case the testimony of expert witnesses was the main factor that determined conviction on the charge of murder of babies. Sir Roy Meadow, a pediatrician who had been practicing for several years, provided evidence to the Court in the form of statistical calculations which were later proved to be wrong. The question of reliance on expert testimony and forensic evidence were the major points of contention in the appeal of Sally Clark and Angela Cannings, since this issue had already been raised in the issue of other cases such as that of the Birmingham Six13, who had served 16 years in jail after being convicted on the basis of faulty forensic evidence and were released in 1991.14 In this case which came up for appeal, it was held that the Appeal Court was not required to determine whether or not the accused were innocent of the crimes they were purported to have committed15, the moot point for the Court to examine was whether the judgment of the lower Court on conviction could be allowed to stand. The Court held that serious doubts could be raised about the police evidence based on confessions and the scientific evidence that was procured for the trial and formed the basis upon which the conviction was handed out. It was on this basis that the Court of Appeals held that the conviction could not be deemed to be satisfactory. Examples of controversial evidence: Certain categories of evidence are being developed as a result of technological advances and in many instances their use has been deemed to be controversial. One of the most notable examples of such evidence is DNA analysis. This has been considered to be a competent type of evidence because through forensic science analysis of chromosomes, through polymorphic markers, identity of a suspect can be established with a remarkable degree of accuracy, therefore this is considered one of the best types of evidence. The probability of obtaining the same profile of DNA in two different persons is about 1 in 100,000 or 1,000,000, therefore a DNA analysis has been conclusive in establishing guilt in many cases.16 But DNA evidence is controversial because in many instances, it is being found to be inconclusive and unreliable because it weighs too significantly as a factor in the judges’ decisions, so that they tend to ignore other aspects which must also be satisfied before guilt can be established. The criminal justice system is an exhaustive process, wherein every opportunity is provided to a defendant to prove his or her innocence through the requirements of evidence and testimonies and the critical application of judicial expertise to the various aspects of the case. But the reliance on scientific evidence leads to the temptation to shelve this exhaustive process for a quick solution to a crime and may thereby undermine the cause of justice itself , which the law is ultimately intended to serve. In a similar manner, trace evidence is also considered to be controversial. Fibres and hairs left at the scene of a crime are used by forensic experts and these are considered to be reliable evidence. However the problem with such evidence is the fact that fibre is not unique and is best understood in forensic science as a “class characteristic.”17 Therefore establishing guilt through such analysis has also led to some cases where there could be a travesty of justice, just as in the case of DNA evidence where people convicted have later been found to be innocent . Conclusion: On the basis of the above, it may be noted that a scientific approach to the law offers some advantages in that it may enhance the reliability and validity of the tools of the law in some cases. However, the instances of miscarriage of justice that have been cited demonstrate the fact that scientific analysis is not infallible and may not always serve the cause of true justice. The law provides for an exhaustive and comprehensive approach to lawmaking and interpretation of the law, and these laws are founded based upon man’s reason and some immutable principles that are derived out of morality and that which is construed to be good by a majority of people. The cases of Riggs and the grudge informer case also reveal that there is an inevitable moral basis to the law which is immutable, unless this foundation exists, it is difficult to frame rules and hypotheses that will yield the desired results. In order to ensure that the framework of the law functions in a manner that will be more or less uniformly applicable in all cases, the analysis of law must be approached only from the scientific perspective of facts and objectivity. However the underlying foundations of the law cannot be eschewed altogether. While scientific methods are undoubtedly useful in the study of law, especially in providing valuable tools of data and analysis of fact, they cannot form the sole basis for adjudication. The law is intended to serve the cause of justice, however a true analysis of the law that will incorporate its objectives will also need to include the underlying principles of the application of the law which will be conditioned by natural realities and the moral framework, aided by man’s reason. Bibliography * Aristotle. Nichomachean Ethics * Dworkin, Ronald, 1986. Law’s Empire London: Fontana * Dworkin, Ronald, 1977. Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp 24-25 * Fischetti, Mark, No date. DNA as a forensic instrument [online] available at: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-1.3/dna-forensic.html * H. O. Pappe, 1960. “On the validity of  judicial decisions in the Nazi era” (1960) 23 MLR 60   * Kries, Stephen. “The Age of ideologies: Reflections on Karl Marx” In The History Guide: Lectures on Modern European Intellectual History, 2000. Accessed from www.historyguide.org/intellect/lecture24a.html on 4/30/2006 * Locke, John, An essay concerning human understanding Book 2. * Lowe, E.J, 1995. Locke on human Understanding London and New York: Routledge * Law: [online] Available at: http://learnline.cdu.edu.au/units/contestedknowledges/Issues_Law.html * Reliable types of evidence [online] available at: http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~yezzi/justify3.html * Ramsland, Katherine. Trace evidence [Online] available at: http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/trace/3.html * Riggs v Palmer (1889) 115 NY 506 * Report titled Forensic Science on Trial pp 64 [online] Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmsctech/96/96i.pdf; accessed 4/30/2006 * R v Stafford (Dennis) (No: 2) (1974) A.C. 878 * R v McIlkenny (1992) 2 All ER 417; 93 Cr App R 287 * Sally Clark [2003] EWCA Crim 216   * Vlasova, T. “Marxist-Leninist Philosophy” Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1987 Read More