- Clifford Miller added an answer:Are unproven unscientific theories accepted in court?
Many miscarriage of justice cases have occurred because experts give their expert opinions based on theories which lack sound scientific foundations. Some theories gain acceptance based on very little verification and even remain in use despite being shown to be unsound.
An example is Shaken Baby Syndrome, where despite the basis of the theory being falsified in that the triad of injuries upon which the theory relies being found in natural deaths where no abuse or non accidental injury has occurred, the theory remains deployed.
Similarly Münchausen Syndrome by Proxy has been deployed and, despite judicial recognition of its poor scientific foundations, and in consequence of it, the theory has been renamed. It was redeployed initially as 'Factitious Illness by Proxy' ('FIBP') and later "Fabricated or Induced Illness" ("FII") appears to have taken over.
If by "I do not live in a scientific driven world" you mean subjectively you recognise what passes as reliable knowledge when called "scientific" is not so reliable then that is a sentiment I endorse and believe to be true.
That we do live objectively in a "scientific driven world" where one too many think anything dubbed "science" = law-like truth or even just "reliable" and those who recognise that is not an appropriate worldview are seemingly in the minority.
Here though the question is directed to theories which are produced as if "science" but which do not have sound foundations but are still adhered to and acted upon as if reliable despite good evidence to the contrary.
My description of your points as "entertainingly put" is because they are and not to denigrate. Your prose holds the reader's attention and thus helps communicate your points.
The RTA example is merely to signify that some theories remain valid and useful in most conditions of everyday human experience even though they may have been shown to be wanting for universal application. Contrast SBS and MSbP as the examples in the question.Following
- Dr J-F . added an answer:Prisons housing inmates sentenced by the ICTY, ICTR and SCSLMe and a group of researchers from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam are conducting research on the level of custody and the range of services provided to prisoners who have been sentenced by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL). Inmates sentenced by these courts are serving their sentences in a variety of countries that have participating agreements with the tribunals. At present, there are ICTY, ICTR and SCSL inmates spread around 14 European countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and UK) and 4 African countries (Benin, Mali, Rwanda and Tanzania).
I would appreciate any information you have regarding:
- correction system in any of these countries
- individual prisons where these inmates are housed
- the level of security and custody provided, and
- any information about the daily routine they experience, including recreational, educational, and other rehabilitation services
Yes, very happy to assist - let me know what specific things you are after - I have worked in this area for quite a sometime
- Bruno Dias added an answer:Has individual accountability, particularly after the trial of Charles Taylor, become an inviolable norm of international law?The Nuremberg Trials set the tone for the evolution of a host of norms that eventually found their reflection in the Rome Statute. With over 122 Ratifications, the Rome Statute has come to be a guiding light on its own merit casting its luminance on those functions of sovereigns that hitherto were protected from 'public scrutiny'. There are serious debates as to whether by subscribing to the ICC nations are forsaking their sovereignty. The number of ratifications however are reflective of the emergence of a consensus amongst nations that no regime must violate individual right to life and dignity in the name of sovereign impregnability. Charles Taylor's conviction seems to suggest that the consensus is not merely a vote for morality. Or, is it?Good Morning Srinivasan,
Agreed. And let's carry on the debate so we can keep the flame in academic fora and incite it to the political level.Following