After reading your post, I feel that you have a good case about the Daubert standard. I especially agree with you that the Daubert standard is one of the best techniques that are applied to psychological science because it focuses on challenging the testimony of expert witnesses. Challenging expert witnesses has great advantages in court. It ensures that the defendant is judged based on legitimate scientific principles. I feel that this is what makes the Daubert standard best applied to psychological science. An expert witness is forced to explain to the opposing party that his or her opinion is based on verifiable scientific knowledge. This emphasis is important in court proceedings because the judge is able to make a decision based on facts that can be proved or disapproved. If the judge feels that the evidence of the expert witness is not credible, it is thrown out and cannot be used on trial. In this way, I agree with you in this aspect.
I also agree with you that what makes Daubert standard appealing is that the expert witness is a professional who has the expertise and knowledge to provide the necessary scientific information. I believe that if the court finds that there are sufficient facts, then the expert testimony becomes reliable to be used in trial. All the same, I find that you have not provided the other side of the argument in regards to why Frye should not be considered effective to be applied in psychological science. You have only addressed the Daubert standard. As a result, your argument is missing a key aspect of providing this comparison. I would have wanted you to provide information on what is wrong with Frye that makes Daubert standard better. Ultimately, your arguments about the Daubert standard are effective and verifiable with the source you have provided.
I agree with your post in the way you have analyzed both Frye and Daubert standard to show the strengths in each. In Frye, I concur that this system requires a scientific technique to be used in court if it is generally accepted in a particular field. In this case, the scientific community in a particular field must agree with the scientific principle for it to be considered valid and to be used in court proceedings. In my opinion, Frye could be difficult to establish if a certain scientific concept has passed all experimental stages in the scientific community. However, because of its inclusivity in ensuring that a scientific concept must be acceptable in the scientific community, I feel that it is strongly accepted. This is why it is used in many states such as Florida, Illinois, California, Kansas, New York, Minnesota, Washington, Maryland, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The fact that it is used in many states shows that it is an effective method of determining if to apply a scientific concept in court or not.
Looking at your analysis of Daubert standard, I feel that you have provided a comprehensive description of this system. You have indicated the conditions that must be met within the Daubert standard. In this case, expert testimony should only be used if it helps the court understand the facts in a case, if it is based on sufficient facts, reliable scientific principles, and the expert has applied all principles to the facts of the case. I am also in agreement with you that although Frye is used in many states, the Daubert standard is accepted in more than half of all states, especially in federal cases. I feel that the Daubert standard provides a compelling standard of how expert testimony should be applied. It provides more enhanced conditions than Frye, which make it more appealing for use in court proceedings.