International Commentary on Evidence最新文献_第10页

A True Crime: A Review of Janet Malcolm, The Crime of Sheila McGough 一个真实的罪行:珍妮特·马尔科姆的书评，希拉·麦高夫的罪行

International Commentary on Evidence Pub Date : 1999-01-04 DOI: 10.2202/1554-4567.1016

Michael S. Ariens

引用次数: 0

Tyres with a 'Y' : An English Perspective on Kuhmo Tire and its Implications for the Admissibility of Expert Evidence 带“Y”字的轮胎:库赫莫轮胎的英语视角及其对专家证据可采性的启示

International Commentary on Evidence Pub Date : 1999-01-02 DOI: 10.2202/1554-4567.1005

P. Roberts

引用次数: 0

Reply to Comment on: Adams and the Person in the Locked Room 回复评论:Adams和the Person in the Locked Room

International Commentary on Evidence Pub Date : 1998-09-28 DOI: 10.2202/1554-4567.1022

C. Callen

引用次数: 0

Comment on: Adams and the Person in the Locked Room 评论:亚当斯和上锁房间里的人

International Commentary on Evidence Pub Date : 1998-01-19 DOI: 10.2202/1554-4567.1021

R. Shapira

引用次数: 0

Fact Determination: Common Sense Knowledge, Judicial Notice, and Social Science Evidence 事实认定:常识、司法通知和社会科学证据

International Commentary on Evidence Pub Date : 1998-01-07 DOI: 10.2202/1554-4567.1008

M. MacCrimmon

{"title":"Fact Determination: Common Sense Knowledge, Judicial Notice, and Social Science Evidence","authors":"M. MacCrimmon","doi":"10.2202/1554-4567.1008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1554-4567.1008","url":null,"abstract":"Fact determination in judicial decision making involves common sense reasoning. Triers of fact draw on their knowledge of the law, of the physical world, the meaning of words, and human behavior. Fact determination is a product of interaction between the evidence and the background and experience of the trier of fact. The heterogeneous nature of the stock of knowledge means that we must look to more than one doctrine of law in considering how to regulate the fact determination process, including rules of expert opinion, the doctrine of judicial notice, rules re circumstantial evidence, corroboration requirements and presumptions, plus rules against judicial bias must be considered as well as the large body of common sense knowledge.Increased scrutiny has been called for in the role of common sense knowledge in fact determination. What standards should judges apply in deciding which aspects of common sense knowledge are to be incorporated into their decisions? Two interrelated issues are: (1) When is it legitimate for judges to articulate common sense generalizations either in their reasons or in directions to the jury? (2) When should social science evidence be admissible to modify and expand the “stock of knowledge”?This paper will discuss some of the factors which led to recent scrutiny of the stock of common knowledge underlying factual determinations in judicial decisions and examine the role of common sense knowledge in fact determination. The rule of law and statements of fundamental rights such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the European Convention on Human rights, and the South African Bill of Fundamental Rights require that fact determination be accurate, fair, impartial and egalitarian. How can this be achieved? There is no universal understanding of the way the world operates and therefore unthinking reliance on common sense knowledge may result in decisions which fail to take into account the life experiences of those adversely affected by the criminal justice system. A first step is to articulate the stock of knowledge to the extent that is possible. Once articulated, a normative standard for distinguishing legitimate from illegitimate social knowledge is necessary. The author explore several legal doctrines and other sources of knowledge that inform this standard and which together can help a judicial decision maker achieve accurate, fair, impartial and egalitarian factual determinations.","PeriodicalId":129839,"journal":{"name":"International Commentary on Evidence","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1998-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130921283","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 5

Adams and the Person in the Locked Room 亚当斯和上锁房间里的人

International Commentary on Evidence Pub Date : 1998-01-06 DOI: 10.2202/1554-4567.1020

C. Callen

引用次数: 1

Bayesianism and Apriorism 贝叶斯主义和先验主义

International Commentary on Evidence Pub Date : 1998-01-06 DOI: 10.2202/1554-4567.1023

Mike Redmayne

引用次数: 0

Foreword: Commentaries on Roberts and Zuckerman's Criminal Evidence 前言:罗伯茨和祖克曼的刑事证据述评

International Commentary on Evidence Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.2202/1554-4567.1033

T. Editors

引用次数: 0

Re-assessing the Evidentiary Regime of the International Court of Justice: A Case for Codifying Its Discretion to Exclude Evidence 重新评估国际法院的证据制度:一个编纂国际法院排除证据裁量权的案例

International Commentary on Evidence Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.1515/ice-2016-0001

Siyuan Chen

{"title":"Re-assessing the Evidentiary Regime of the International Court of Justice: A Case for Codifying Its Discretion to Exclude Evidence","authors":"Siyuan Chen","doi":"10.1515/ice-2016-0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ice-2016-0001","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Like many international tribunals, the International Court of Justice subscribes heavily to the principle of free admissibility of evidence. Neither its statute nor rules impose substantive restrictions on the admissibility of evidence, whether by way of exclusionary rules or an exclusionary discretion. Instead, the court’s practice has been to focus on evaluating and weighing the evidence after it has been admitted. There are certainly features of the ICJ that sets it apart from domestic courts and arguably justify such an approach: the ICJ is for settling disputes between sovereign states; it does not use a typical fact-finding system; its rules and practices reflect a mix of civil and common law traditions; and traditional exclusionary rules were not conceived with inter-state dispute resolution in mind. Yet for any judgment to have legitimacy, the evidential foundations must be strong and there should be a coherent and principled mechanism to sieve out problematic evidence at an early stage. Having this mechanism can also ensure that resources are not wasted and rights protected. Through an examination of the court’s rules and jurisprudence and the rules and practices of other international tribunals, this article makes the case for the codification of a provision that gives the ICJ an exclusionary discretion.","PeriodicalId":129839,"journal":{"name":"International Commentary on Evidence","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133907631","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Valentine, Tim and Davis, Josh P: Forensic Facial Identification: Theory and Practice of Identification from Eyewitnesses, Composites and CCTV 《法医面部识别:来自目击者、合成材料和闭路电视的识别理论与实践》

International Commentary on Evidence Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.1515/ice-2016-0003

Joseph Payne

引用次数: 0