An Investigation of the Causal Inference between Epidemiology and Jurisprudence

• Κύριος συγγραφέας: Jung, Minsoo (Συγγραφέας, http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/aut)
• Συγγραφή απο Οργανισμό/Αρχή: SpringerLink (Online service)
• Μορφή: Ηλεκτρονική πηγή Ηλ. βιβλίο
• Γλώσσα: English
• Έκδοση: Singapore : Springer Singapore : Imprint: Springer, 2018.
• Έκδοση: 1st ed. 2018.
• Σειρά: SpringerBriefs in Philosophy,
• Θέματα: Political science.; Epidemiology.; Social justice.; Human rights.; Philosophy of Law.; Social Justice, Equality and Human Rights.

 This book examines how legal causation inference and epidemiological causal inference can be harmonized within the realm of jurisprudence, exploring why legal causation and epidemiological causation differ from each other and defining related problems. The book also discusses how legal justice can be realized and how victims' rights can be protected. It looks at epidemiological evidence pertaining to causal relationships in cases such as smoking and the development of lung cancer, and enables readers to correctly interpret and rationally use the results of epidemiological studies in lawsuits. The book argues that in today's risk society, it is no longer possible to thwart the competence of evidence using epidemiological research results. In particular, it points out that the number of cases that struggle to prove a causal relationship excluding those using epidemiological data will lead to an increase in the number of lawsuits for damages that arise as a result of harmful materials that affect our health. The book argues that the responsibility to compensate for damages that have actually occurred must be imputed to a particular party and that this can be achieved by understanding causal inferences between jurisprudence and epidemiology. This book serves as a foundation for students, academics and researchers who have an interest in epidemiology and the law, and those who are keen to discover how jurisprudence can bring these two areas together. 

 1. Introduction -- 2. Research Background -- 2.1. Essential Review of Causation -- 2.2. Causation in Philosophy -- 2.2.1. The Problem of Induction -- 2.2.2. Causation in Empirical Philosophy -- 2.2.3. Causation in the Philosophy of Law -- 2.3. Causation in Criminal Law -- 2.3.1. Theory of Objective Imputation and Criticisms -- 2.3.2. Comparison with the Anglo-American Theory of Causation -- 2.3.3. Application to the South Korean Criminal Act -- 2.3.4. Legal Cases in Korea -- 2.3.5. Remarks -- 2.4. Causation in Civil Law -- 2.4.1. Causation in Medical Malpractices -- 2.4.2. Objects of Proof and the Burden of Proof -- 2.4.3. Review of Judicial Precedents -- 2.4.4. Remarks -- 2.5. Causation in Epidemiology -- 3. Methods in Epidemiology -- 3.1. The Role of Epidemiology -- 3.2. Epidemiological Investigation -- 3.2.1. Experimental Study and Observational Study -- 3.2.2. Types of Observational Study -- 3.3. Interpretations of Epidemiological Results -- 3.3.1. Relative Risk -- 3.3.2. Odds Ratio -- 3.3.3. Attributable Risk -- 3.4. Causal Misinterpretations in Epidemiology -- 4. Debates on Causation in Tobacco Lawsuits -- 4.1. Legal Perspectives -- 4.2. Epidemiological Perspectives -- 4.3 Tobacco Lawsuit Cases in Korea -- 5. Criteria of Epidemiological Causation and its Limitations -- 5.1. Criteria of Epidemiological Causation -- 5.2. Critiques of the Epidemiological Criteria -- 5.3. Pragmatic Pluralism in Causal Inference -- 5.3.1. Potential Outcomes Approach -- 5.3.2. Restricted Potential Outcomes Approach -- 5.3.3. Difficult Points of Restricted Potential Outcomes Approach -- 5.4. Scientific Evidence in the Court -- 5.5. Remarks -- 6. Epidemiological Causation and Legal Causation -- 6.1. Legal Proof on Causation with Epidemiological Results -- 6.2. Legal Proof on Causation without Epidemiological Results.-6.3. Concluding Remarks -- 7. Conclusions -- 7.1. Concluding Remarks -- 7.2. Practical Implications -- Appendix -- References.