Scientific Thinking About Legal Truth

In the criminal process, the fact finders assess the validity of impressions reported by witnesses based on their perceptions and determine what has happened in reality. However, these impressions are not subject to any external validity check. The Innocence Project revealed the failure of this subjective method and showed how it can lead to innocent convictions. The legal literature has examined ways to manage the risk of mistakes, but these ways are inconsistent with the scientific understanding of the need for external validity measurements, suggesting the need for new ways of thinking about the legal search for truth and justice.

Automated summary

In the criminal process, impressions reported by witnesses are assessed and determined by fact finders based on their perceptions. However, this subjective method has been shown to be flawed and can result in wrongful convictions, as highlighted by the Innocence Project. Current approaches in legal literature to manage mistakes are inconsistent with the scientific understanding of the need for external validity measurements, indicating the need for new perspectives on the search for truth and justice in the legal system.