Please read the article entitled "Science, Law and the Expert witness" by Joseph Sanders

Instructions:

After a proper introduction, in the first section of the paper ("The Differences"), please identify and summarize succinctly the 3 differences that exist between the scientific and legal conventions to fact finding (or the search for the truth) as presented by the author Joseph Sanders.

In the second section of the paper ("The Risks"), (a) please identify and (b) discuss critically the risks or consequences of both adversarialism and the need for closure on the work of expert witnessas explained by the author in the sections "Role" and "Justification."

Hint: to discuss "critically" the risks or consequences identified from the article, please develop your arguments in relation to the concept of Justice and Truth (or fact-findings).

Finally (Conclusion: "Truth vs Power?"), transitioning from your critical discussion on such consequences, please conclude your paper by responding and justifying your answer to the following questions: In non-adversarial procedural settings, such as in Germany or Japan, could we simply trust the impartiality and neutrality of the court in selecting the expert witness over the parties? In matters of Justice, could Truth stand apart from Power?

Format:

The paper of 2000 words, (approximatively 8 pages, excluding page of presentation, endnotes or footnotes, and the references section), will include a page of presentation, an introduction, body and conclusion, subtitles that identify the different sections of the paper, page numbers and a reference section. Your writing style should favour clear and short sentences, serving cogent and critical argumentation. use the McGill citation guide.