Those who work in the psychology field and those who work in the legal profession differ in their exposure to and training of different points of view. Psychology has the view that the world is an objectifiable experience understood through science; this is the doctrinal view of the law versus the empirical view of psychology. Most psychologists are trained to objectively seek the truth. Legal experts, however, rely mostly on precedent and refer to cases from the past to make decisions. Stare decisis ("let the decision stand") is an important concept, as judges are reluctant to contradict previous decisions. The law uses the "case method" where lawyers find prior cases similar to a current case to help them (legal precedent). Psychology uses the experimental method by gathering data representative of a large population.
Similar to a psychologist's hesitance to make conclusions based on a small sample, lawyers are hesitant to rely on collections of data from studies. The law uses absolutes (either/or) while psychology deals with probability. Lawyers become frustrated with the inconclusiveness of psychologists because the judicial system requires a verdict-a final definite conclusion. The law supports contrasting views of reality while psychology seeks to clarify a single view. While jurors must decide which of a set of possibilities is the "more acceptable," psychologists prefer to be open to all theories and assimilate them into one, rather than setting aside all other possibilities. Research that has been conducted on hypnotically-refreshed testimony, eyewitness identification, false confessions, the effects of pretrial publicity, and the timing and comprehensibility of judicial instructions, has valuable information that would likely lead to trials that are more fair because proceedings would rely on scientific evidence rather than legal precedent alone.
