Scientific Evidence in Europe -- Admissibility, Evaluation and Equality of Arms

C. Champod, J. Vuille
{"title":"Scientific Evidence in Europe -- Admissibility, Evaluation and Equality of Arms","authors":"C. Champod, J. Vuille","doi":"10.2202/1554-4567.1123","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study was commissioned by the European Committee on Crime Problems at the Council of Europe to describe and discuss the standards used to asses the admissibility and appraisal of scientific evidence in various member countries. After documenting cases in which faulty forensic evidence seems to have played a critical role, the authors describe the legal foundations of the issues of admissibility and assessment of the probative value in the field of scientific evidence, contrasting criminal justice systems of accusatorial and inquisitorial tradition and the various risks that they pose in terms of equality of arms. Special attention is given to communication issues between lawyers and scientific experts. The authors eventually investigate possible ways of improving the system. Among these mechanisms, emphasis is put on the adoption of a common terminology for expressing the weight of evidence. It is also proposed to adopt an harmonized interpretation framework among forensic experts rooted in good practices of logical inference.The foreword was authored by D. Michael Risinger, Seton Hall University School of Law.","PeriodicalId":129839,"journal":{"name":"International Commentary on Evidence","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"22","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Commentary on Evidence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1554-4567.1123","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

Abstract

This study was commissioned by the European Committee on Crime Problems at the Council of Europe to describe and discuss the standards used to asses the admissibility and appraisal of scientific evidence in various member countries. After documenting cases in which faulty forensic evidence seems to have played a critical role, the authors describe the legal foundations of the issues of admissibility and assessment of the probative value in the field of scientific evidence, contrasting criminal justice systems of accusatorial and inquisitorial tradition and the various risks that they pose in terms of equality of arms. Special attention is given to communication issues between lawyers and scientific experts. The authors eventually investigate possible ways of improving the system. Among these mechanisms, emphasis is put on the adoption of a common terminology for expressing the weight of evidence. It is also proposed to adopt an harmonized interpretation framework among forensic experts rooted in good practices of logical inference.The foreword was authored by D. Michael Risinger, Seton Hall University School of Law.
欧洲的科学证据——可采性、评价与武器平等
这项研究是由欧洲委员会的欧洲犯罪问题委员会委托进行的,目的是描述和讨论各成员国用于评估科学证据的可采性和评估的标准。在记录了错误的法医证据似乎起了关键作用的案件之后,作者描述了可采性问题和科学证据领域的证据价值评估问题的法律基础,对比了控诉和讯问传统的刑事司法制度以及它们在武器平等方面构成的各种风险。特别关注律师和科学专家之间的沟通问题。作者最终研究了改进该系统的可能方法。在这些机制中,重点放在采用共同的术语来表示证据的重要性。还建议在法医专家之间采用基于逻辑推理良好做法的统一解释框架。前言由西顿霍尔大学法学院的D. Michael Risinger撰写。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信