Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Can Effective Apology Emerge Through Litigation?, Alphonse A. Gerhardstein
Can Effective Apology Emerge Through Litigation?, Alphonse A. Gerhardstein
Law and Contemporary Problems
Gerhardstein provides a number of examples in which the factors identified by Roger Conner and Patricia Jordan--ripeness, a window of opportunity, and a symbolic act or gesture--came together to facilitate apology by a public leader. But he doesn't think that the window of opportunity needs to be exogenously determined. Rather, advocates can, through litigation and settlement demands, create that window. He believes that apology by public officials can do more to promote healthy civic society than can mere monetary settlement.
Trials And Tribulations: What Happens When Historians Enter The Courtroom, David Rosner
Trials And Tribulations: What Happens When Historians Enter The Courtroom, David Rosner
Law and Contemporary Problems
In recent years, historians have been brought into legal cases in unprecedented numbers. As the courts have tried to adjudicate responsibility for environmental and occupational diseases, history has played an increasingly central role in decisions that affect the cases themselves and in social policy regarding risk. In suits over tobacco-related diseases, asbestosis, radiation, and other toxic substances, more historians of technology and science, social history, and public health are being sought to provide testimony aimed at assessing responsibility for damages that have arisen years--sometimes decades--after exposure. Here, Rosner traces the use of historians as experts in litigation.
Science, Law And The Expert Witness, Joseph Sanders
Science, Law And The Expert Witness, Joseph Sanders
Law and Contemporary Problems
Expert witnessing is a particularly useful place to observe the clash of legal and scientific conventions because it is here that one group of people (scientific experts) who are integrated into one set of conventions are challenged by the expectations of a different set of conventions. Here, Sanders looks at how legal conventions affect the behavior of expert witnesses when they appear in court in both criminal and civil cases. He also reviews differences in scientific and legal conventions as they apply to expert knowledge and discusses two central reasons for these differences: adversarialism and closure.