Daubert standard compared to the Frye standard and why.
Challenges and Implications: Explore the obstacles the courts have encountered in implementing the Daubert and Frye criteria concerning expert testimonies, especially in litigation involving brand-new and unproven scientific methods. How do these criteria hinder the capacity of the judiciary to incorporate state-of-the-art scientific and technological developments?
Ethical Considerations: Consider the ethical consequences of determining the court’s decision to allow an expert’s testimony, as per the grip of Frye’s rigid rule or Daubert’s more pliable principles. Are these directives based on providing real help or aiding the opposite in pursuing justice? Especially when the case revolves around a critical issue of guilt or innocence and is backed by scientific evidence, can the jury be fully convinced by satisfying the standard?
Faith vs. Science in Legal Proceedings: From a biblical standpoint, how can one reconcile the reliance on scientific evidence, as scrutinized under the Daubert and Frye standards, with the biblical principles of truth and justice? Consider the story of Solomon’s wisdom in 1 Kings 3:16-28 as a basis for discussing the integration of wisdom, discernment, and evidence in making just decisions. How might Solomon’s approach inform our understanding of the balance between scientific evidence and moral judgment in legal proceedings?
Your response should be four to five pages written in standard APA format and submitted as a Word document. Your response should be supported by a minimum of two outside references and cited accordingly.
Scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on add a file, then click submit to upload your assignment by the posted due date. Review the rubric for specific grading criteria.
Due on Jun 16, 2024 11:59 PM
