The uses of social science in a legal system

Each of the main components of a legal system - legislatures, courts, the bar, the police and regulatory and other government bureaucracies - uses knowl­edge from the social sciences.

Legal scholars and lawyers use the methods and knowledge of social science for many of the same purposes and, often, in the same ways as legislators and judges. Legal scholars, who have a larger role in code law systems than they do in common law systems, often use the methods and knowledge of social science. Lawyers frequently use the methods and knowl­edge of social science, sometimes in controversial ways. Because their goal is the victory of their client, the knowledge from the social sciences they use in arguing their cases is often less than impartial. They regularly employ social scientists who provide testimony favourable to their cause. It is not uncom­mon to find two equally qualified social science experts on opposite sides. This is one result of the contingent nature of social science knowledge. In the United States, lawyers also use social science to plan both systems of litigation and the litigation of a case. For examples of these uses, see the traditional law school casebook edited by John Monahan and Laurens Walker (1994).

One controversial aspect of the use of social science is the employment of social scientists who specialize in the process of jury selection. These spec­ialists have the job of choosing jurors who are most likely to render the verdict desired.

The police are the most visible sign of the law for most people. They often must interpret behaviour and apply sanctions for enforcement. They use both the methods and findings of social science in many ways. Exam­ples range from constructing psychological profiles of criminals to the use of the findings of anthropology and sociology in their understanding of the behaviour and treatment of different cultural groups. Increasing traffic in drugs has required police to learn the economics of money laundering. They must also try to satisfy those who support them with constrained budgets.

The same is true of regulatory and other government bureaucracies. All face the fundamental economic issue of attempting to do their jobs with limited resources. The inability of legislators to keep up with all the needed changes in the laws and the administration of those they have passed has resulted in the growth of bureaucracies. The delegation of legislative duties to a large number of administrative organs of many varieties has had the conse­quence that many bureaucracies not only administer laws but make them in the form of regulations. Bureaucrats in these agencies have the power not only to interpret the laws but also to make regulations and to determine procedures and sanctions.

Many administrative agencies are absolutely dependent on the work of social scientists. Perhaps the most important of these are the agencies in charge of financial matters. Regulations without a solid basis in economic theory would be worthless. Much the same can be said for the government departments in charge of regulating energy, telecommunications and the environment. Many other agencies, for example those in charge of education and health and welfare, often use the findings of social science as the basis for the regulations and procedures they decree. Both legislatures and admin­istrative agencies find themselves faced with new problems, because the growth of technology has social consequences. For example, the problems of worker displacement and unemployment cannot be understood without the help of economics. It is hard to imagine any part of the legal system that does not use social science in some way.