Visit our website
New America Cypbersecurity Initiative
New America Cypbersecurity Initiative
MIT Technology Review
MIT Technology Review
io9
io9
Techdirt
Techdirt
Knowledge@Wharton
Knowledge@Wharton
Bioscience Technology
Bioscience Technology
redOrbit
redOrbit
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Popular Science Blog
Popular Science Blog
Pew Research Center
Pew Research Center
Genomics Law Report
Genomics Law Report
Science 2.0
Science 2.0
The Guardian Headquarters
The Guardian Headquarters
Genetic Literacy Project
Genetic Literacy Project
Disclaimer

Statements posted on this blog represent the views of individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Center for Law Science & Innovation (which does not take positions on policy issues) or of the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law or Arizona State University.

Worldwide Web Watch

WWWearthOctober 5, 2016

Right or wrong, how often does one hear talk about systems being biased?  Especially the justice system.  From juries to witnesses, one can’t escape the apprehension.  To help remedy the situation, or at least better level the playing field, comes a concept from Down Under: hot tubbing.  As Anjelica Cappellino, an author at the Expert Institute explains,  hot tubbing “is a procedure whereby the experts [witnesses] of both parties convene with the judge and discuss the case together under oath in an attempt to reach an agreement. Ostensibly, hot-tubbing is meant to be less formalized and adversarial, with the ultimate goal being compromise between the parties.”  While still in its infancy in the U.S., the idea is gaining traction — however, a big question remains as to whether it will work within the parameters of our adversarial system.