Expert Knowledge as a Condition of the Rhetorical Situation in Criminal Cases

Q2 Social Sciences
E. Friis, Karsten Åström
{"title":"Expert Knowledge as a Condition of the Rhetorical Situation in Criminal Cases","authors":"E. Friis, Karsten Åström","doi":"10.18261/ISSN.2387-3299-2017-01-02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the scope of a Swedish research project on expert knowledge as a basis for legal decisions, this article focuses on serious criminal cases. Using a model that describes rhetorical situations as well as empirical material based in 150 court decisions, the aim is to analyze the conditions surrounding the use of expert evidence in criminal law processes, to what extent and by whom such evidence is used, and how it affects the outcome of the cases.The rhetorical situation in criminal case is reconstructed to include the urgent issue and the thereby related discourse, in order to retrieve relevant conditions, which could be identified as evidentially favorable or unfavorable to the suspect and the prosecutor respectively. It is concluded that there is a theoretical imbalance between the parties’ to the benefit of the defendant. Empirically grounded analysis of the criminal cases shows, however, that the defendant’s theoretical advantage does not correspond to the actual situation in court. The results indicate that the defendant usually adopts a passive stance and therefore does not use favorable constraints effectively. The study has also shown that the defendant’s options to win the case increase when they actually use written expert evidence and expert witnesses. (Less)","PeriodicalId":36793,"journal":{"name":"Oslo Law Review","volume":"4 1","pages":"28-47"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oslo Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN.2387-3299-2017-01-02","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the scope of a Swedish research project on expert knowledge as a basis for legal decisions, this article focuses on serious criminal cases. Using a model that describes rhetorical situations as well as empirical material based in 150 court decisions, the aim is to analyze the conditions surrounding the use of expert evidence in criminal law processes, to what extent and by whom such evidence is used, and how it affects the outcome of the cases.The rhetorical situation in criminal case is reconstructed to include the urgent issue and the thereby related discourse, in order to retrieve relevant conditions, which could be identified as evidentially favorable or unfavorable to the suspect and the prosecutor respectively. It is concluded that there is a theoretical imbalance between the parties’ to the benefit of the defendant. Empirically grounded analysis of the criminal cases shows, however, that the defendant’s theoretical advantage does not correspond to the actual situation in court. The results indicate that the defendant usually adopts a passive stance and therefore does not use favorable constraints effectively. The study has also shown that the defendant’s options to win the case increase when they actually use written expert evidence and expert witnesses. (Less)
专家知识作为刑事案件修辞情境的条件
在瑞典一个关于专家知识作为法律裁决基础的研究项目范围内,本文侧重于严重刑事案件。使用一个描述修辞情境的模型以及基于150项法院判决的经验材料,目的是分析在刑法程序中使用专家证据的条件,这些证据在多大程度上以及由谁使用,以及它如何影响案件的结果。刑事案件中的修辞情境被重构为包括紧迫问题和由此产生的相关话语,以检索相关条件,这些条件可以分别被认定为对嫌疑人和检察官的证据有利或不利。由此得出的结论是,当事人对被告利益的追求在理论上存在不平衡。然而,对刑事案件的实证分析表明,被告人的理论优势与法庭上的实际情况并不相符。结果表明,被告通常采取被动的立场,因此没有有效地使用有利的约束。研究还表明,当被告实际使用书面专家证据和专家证人时,他们赢得案件的选择会增加。(减)
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
Oslo Law Review
Oslo Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信