|
||||
|
||||
Evidence, Procedure, and the Upside of Cognitive ErrorChris William SanchiricoUniversity of Pennsylvania Law School; University of Pennsylvania Wharton School - Business Economics and Public Policy Department; Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center Stanford Law Review, November 2004 Abstract: Humans are imperfect information processors, a fact almost universally bemoaned in legal scholarship. But when it comes to how the legal system itself processes information, cognitive limitations are largely good news. Evidentiary procedure - inclusive of trial, discovery, and investigation - relies heavily on the fact that human mental capacity is limited. Such limits are crucial to separating sincere from insincere testimony. Moreover, notes and other "cognitive artifacts" that individuals make to compensate for their limited cognitive ability are an important source of evidence. This article's primary objective is to elucidate the extent to which cognitive imperfection is beneficial rather than detrimental to evidentiary process and thus to law as a whole. Secondarily, the article discusses how the law of evidentiary process tilts the playing field of litigation in a manner that exacerbates the cognitive limitations of the potentially insincere and offsets the limitations of competing participants.
Keywords: Evidence, Procedure, Cognitive Error, Cognitive Biases and Illusions, Cross Examination, Witness Preparation, Real Evidence, Eyewitness Memory Accepted Paper SeriesDate posted: June 22, 2004Suggested CitationContact Information
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
FAQ
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Copyright
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.594 seconds