International Commentary on Evidence最新文献_第7页

Overcoming Logistical and Structural Barriers to Fair Trials at International Tribunals 克服国际法庭公平审判的后勤和结构障碍

International Commentary on Evidence Pub Date : 2007-01-23 DOI: 10.2202/1554-4567.1051

William T. Pizzi

引用次数: 9

Arthur and Oscar (and Sherlock): The Reconstructive Trial and the 'Hermeneutics of Suspicion' 亚瑟与奥斯卡(和夏洛克):重构审判与“怀疑的解释学”

International Commentary on Evidence Pub Date : 2007-01-18 DOI: 10.2202/1554-4567.1066

Lindsay Farmer

{"title":"Arthur and Oscar (and Sherlock): The Reconstructive Trial and the 'Hermeneutics of Suspicion'","authors":"Lindsay Farmer","doi":"10.2202/1554-4567.1066","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1554-4567.1066","url":null,"abstract":"Sir Arthur Conan Doyle made a significant contribution to the campaign to free Oscar Slater, wrongly convicted of murder in 1909, and imprisoned for eighteen and a half years. This paper examines the trial of Oscar Slater in the light of the argument made by the historian Carlo Ginzburg that the nineteenth century saw the development of a new evidential paradigm as exemplified by the method of Conan Doyle's creation Sherlock Holmes. This is discussed in the context of the development of the `reconstructive' trial in the late nineteenth-century, by looking at changes in the types of evidence admitted to trials, at the changes in the law of evidence and at the relation between the detective and legal counsel. It argues that, like detective fiction, the trial was structured around a `hermeneutics of suspicion' that was institutionalised in certain features of the reconstructive trial. This encouraged jurors and other observers to distrust appearances and to make judgments based on their interpretation of the evidence and the appearance of the accused. Ironically, this contributed to the miscarriage of justice in the case of Oscar Slater that Conan Doyle later sought to challenge by use of the same method.","PeriodicalId":129839,"journal":{"name":"International Commentary on Evidence","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122196656","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: 2

Pass These Sirens By: Further Thoughts on Narrative and Admissibility Rules 通过这些警笛:对叙事和可采性规则的进一步思考

International Commentary on Evidence Pub Date : 2007-01-17 DOI: 10.2202/1554-4567.1057

D. Menashe, Hamutal Esther Shamash

引用次数: 0

Roberts and Zuckerman's Criminal Evidence: (Un)grateful Comments on Six Commentaries 罗伯茨和朱克曼的犯罪证据:对六篇评论的感激评论

International Commentary on Evidence Pub Date : 2007-01-07 DOI: 10.2202/1554-4567.1067

P. Roberts

引用次数: 1

Book Review: Edward Tufte, Beautiful Evidence, Cheshire Ct: Graphics Press, 2006, 213pp, hb $52 书评:爱德华·塔夫特，《美丽的证据》，柴郡Ct:图形出版社，2006年，213页，52美元

International Commentary on Evidence Pub Date : 2007-01-05 DOI: 10.2202/1554-4567.1058

C. Tapper

引用次数: 0

What Does It Mean To Be Free? The Concept of 'Free Proof' in the Western Legal Tradition 自由意味着什么?西方法律传统中的“自由证明”概念

International Commentary on Evidence Pub Date : 2006-10-19 DOI: 10.2202/1554-4567.1041

Déirdre M. Dwyer

引用次数: 3

The Narrative Fallacy 叙事谬误

International Commentary on Evidence Pub Date : 2006-03-16 DOI: 10.2202/1554-4567.1034

D. Menashe, Mutal E Shamash

{"title":"The Narrative Fallacy","authors":"D. Menashe, Mutal E Shamash","doi":"10.2202/1554-4567.1034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1554-4567.1034","url":null,"abstract":"This article uses narrative theory to apply a critical analysis to holistic evidence theory. As an alternative to evidentiary holism, we present traditional atomism as a system geared to the protection of defendants against the adverse influence of prevalent hegemonic narratives, which contributes to and strengthens educational symbolic values (such as the commitment to judging the actions of the accused rather than the accused herself, or the presumption of innocence) as well as protecting marginalized groups in society (including accused people generally). We do not challenge the argument regarding the importance of and perhaps even the need for narrative, as a method of granting meaning to human experience. We do challenge the normative implications commonly drawn from these theories. In this context we present and critique Professor Allen's theory of Relative Plausibility, and Professor Burns' endorsement of freedom of proof. We emphasize the importance of general principles of evidence law (such as Rule 403, in the Federal Rules of Evidence) and the admissibility rules (such as the inadmissibility of hearsay and opinion) as brakes that impede narrative freedom, requiring reference to questions of the credibility of information used by adjudicators, and the personal credibility of their sources. We also analyze the rule regarding character evidence and evidence of disposition as brakes on inferences based on generalizations which are constructed in the dominant stories of communities. We define the Narrative Fallacy as an erroneous heuristic, through which fact finders, attempting to use narratives in order to make sense of insufficient information, mistakenly choose the wrong narrative and so end up distorting the evidence presented. The paper situates the Narrative Fallacy alongside, but independent of, the intuitive statistical judgment fallacies defined and demonstrated in the research of Kahneman, Tversky, and other scholars.","PeriodicalId":129839,"journal":{"name":"International Commentary on Evidence","volume":"72 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127334117","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: 21

The Narrative Fallacy, the Relative Plausibility Theory, and a Theory of the Trial 叙事谬误、相对似是而非理论与审判理论

International Commentary on Evidence Pub Date : 2006-01-20 DOI: 10.2202/1554-4567.1039

R. Allen

引用次数: 3

Experts on Eyewitness Identification: I Just Don't See It 目击者鉴定专家:我只是不明白

International Commentary on Evidence Pub Date : 2006-01-14 DOI: 10.2202/1554-4567.1036

Lee Stuesser

引用次数: 4

What Does a Verdict Do? A Speech Act Analysis of Giving a Verdict 判决有什么作用?判决的言语行为分析

International Commentary on Evidence Pub Date : 2006-01-13 DOI: 10.2202/1554-4567.1042

H. L. Ho

{"title":"What Does a Verdict Do? A Speech Act Analysis of Giving a Verdict","authors":"H. L. Ho","doi":"10.2202/1554-4567.1042","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1554-4567.1042","url":null,"abstract":"To give a legal verdict is to perform a speech act that carries many illocutionary forces. A verdict declares the institutional fact of (non-)guilt or (non-)liability; it asserts, on one interpretation, propositions of facts underlying or constitutive of the alleged guilt or liability, and, on a different interpretation, propositions about the legal proof of those facts; it ascribes legal character to the facts as found; it expresses a psychological state in relation to its propositional content, and, in some cases, with greater or lesser force, a negative attitude to the defendant's past conduct. A verdict can be evaluated on many different dimensions corresponding to the things that it does. As a declaration, it can be judged valid or not; as an assertion, it is true or false; and as an ascription, it is assessable in terms of right and wrong. So far as a verdict expresses belief, we demand that it be sincere and so far as it expresses condemnation, we require that the moral criticism be deserved. The aim of this essay is to provide a set of terminological apparatus with which analyses of the trial process may be conducted with greater clarity, and a framework within which to locate existing discussion of issues arising from such analyses.","PeriodicalId":129839,"journal":{"name":"International Commentary on Evidence","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121609229","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