Discovering the invisible facts: the use of social science knowledge in judicial practice

In addition to the ‘visible facts’ of the case, there are often some ‘invisible facts’ that are not easily discovered but exist objectively, and will affect and restrain human actions, and even produce a key impact on the outcome of the case. In order to effectively discover these ‘invisible facts,’ judges often need to resort to the scientific knowledge, especially the social science knowledge. The presence of people with expertise in court to give explanations or opinions, the use of social investigation reports and assessment scales, and the voluntary use of social science knowledge by judges in trials to confirm facts and make arguments are the usual ways in which social science knowledge enters judicial practice and helps judges to discover the ‘invisible facts’. In China’s current judicial practice, social science knowledge as evidence has been used in the process of discovering the ‘invisible facts,’ but there are still certain risks and blind spots, and improvement upon legislation is needed. To overcome the risk of possible abuse, the use of social science knowledge in judicial practice must be stipulated and consideration must be given to such factors as access qualifications, reliability and probative value, disqualification for interest, prevention of abuse etc. The discovery of the ‘invisible facts’ with the help of social science knowledge will help judges to discover the facts of the case, make reasonable judgments, and bridge the ‘last mile’ between judicial practice and substantive justice.