发布求助
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献

International Journal of Evidence & Proof最新文献

筛选
英文 中文
Reported communication challenges for adult witnesses with intellectual disabilities giving evidence in court 据报道，智力残疾成年证人在法庭作证时面临沟通挑战
IF 1.5 2区 社会学
International Journal of Evidence & Proof Pub Date : 2021-09-08 DOI: 10.1177/13657127211031040
J. Morrison, J. Bradshaw, G. Murphy
{"title":"Reported communication challenges for adult witnesses with intellectual disabilities giving evidence in court","authors":"J. Morrison, J. Bradshaw, G. Murphy","doi":"10.1177/13657127211031040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127211031040","url":null,"abstract":"Communication plays a key role in a witness's ability to give evidence and participate in the court process. Adults with intellectual disabilities (ID) can be negatively impacted by communication difficulties such as: limitations in recall abilities; suggestibility to leading questions; difficult question styles used by advocates; and unfamiliar language used within the court setting. Most research carried out on communication challenges for adults with ID, when giving evidence, has involved participants in psychology-based experimental methodology. In this study 19 court reports assessing actual witnesses (complainants and defendants) with ID, written by Registered Intermediaries in Northern Ireland, were analysed. A wide range of communication difficulties were identified for the adult witnesses. Difficulties resulting from communication used by their communication partner (typically the advocate in a court setting) were also described. A rich model of the challenges for both partners, in giving evidence and in cross-examination, is presented, extending previous research. This study highlights the need for research within UK courts to assess: how witnesses with ID are being questioned; the effectiveness of changes made to the court process to enhance communication; the impact of the court process and environment on communication and alternative question styles for advocates to use.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"25 1","pages":"243 - 263"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42097749","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Evidence, Risk, and Proof Paradoxes: Pessimism about the Epistemic Project 证据、风险和证明悖论：关于认识论项目的悲观主义
IF 1.5 2区 社会学
International Journal of Evidence & Proof Pub Date : 2021-08-03 DOI: 10.1177/13657127211035831
Giada Fratantonio
{"title":"Evidence, Risk, and Proof Paradoxes: Pessimism about the Epistemic Project","authors":"Giada Fratantonio","doi":"10.1177/13657127211035831","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127211035831","url":null,"abstract":"Why can testimony alone be enough for findings of liability? Why statistical evidence alone can't? These questions underpin the ‘Proof Paradox’. Many epistemologists have attempted to explain this paradox from a purely epistemic perspective. I call it the ‘Epistemic Project’. In this paper, I take a step back from this recent trend. Stemming from considerations about the nature and role of standards of proof, I define three requirements that any successful account in line with the Epistemic Project should meet. I then consider three recent epistemic accounts on which the standard is met when the evidence rules out modal risk (Pritchard 2018), normic risk (Ebert et al., 2020), or relevant alternatives (Gardiner 2019 2020). I argue that none of these accounts meets all the requirements. Finally, I offer reasons to be pessimistic about the prospects of having a successful epistemic explanation of the paradox. I suggest the discussion on the proof paradox would benefit from undergoing a ‘value-turn’.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"25 1","pages":"307 - 325"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/13657127211035831","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46065560","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8
Civil liability and the 50%+ standard of proof 民事责任和50%以上的证明标准
IF 1.5 2区 社会学
International Journal of Evidence & Proof Pub Date : 2021-07-01 DOI: 10.1177/13657127211011207
Martin Smith
{"title":"Civil liability and the 50%+ standard of proof","authors":"Martin Smith","doi":"10.1177/13657127211011207","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127211011207","url":null,"abstract":"The standard of proof applied in civil trials is the preponderance of evidence, often said to be met when a proposition is shown to be more than 50% likely to be true. A number of theorists have argued that this 50%+ standard is too weak—there are circumstances in which a court should find that the defendant is not liable, even though the evidence presented makes it more than 50% likely that the plaintiff’s claim is true. In this paper, I will recapitulate the familiar arguments for this thesis, before defending a more radical one: The 50%+ standard is also too strong—there are circumstances in which a court should find that a defendant is liable, even though the evidence presented makes it less than 50% likely that the plaintiff’s claim is true. I will argue that the latter thesis follows naturally from the former once we accept that the parties in a civil trial are to be treated equally. I will conclude by sketching an alternative interpretation of the civil standard of proof","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"25 1","pages":"183 - 199"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/13657127211011207","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41538029","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
The exclusion of prison informant evidence for unreliability in New Zealand 新西兰因不可靠而排除监狱告密者的证据
IF 1.5 2区 社会学
International Journal of Evidence & Proof Pub Date : 2021-05-05 DOI: 10.1177/13657127211011236
Anna High
{"title":"The exclusion of prison informant evidence for unreliability in New Zealand","authors":"Anna High","doi":"10.1177/13657127211011236","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127211011236","url":null,"abstract":"Prison informant or ‘jailhouse snitch’ evidence is a notoriously unreliable category of evidence. In light of reliability concerns, the New Zealand Supreme Court has adopted a progressive approach to the exclusion of prison informant evidence, centred on greater use of general exclusionary provisions as a threshold of reliability for the admission of suspect evidence. In so doing, the court has shifted the emphasis from deference to the jury as arbiter of ultimate reliability and towards more robust judicial gatekeeping as a safeguard against false testimony. This article critically analyses the New Zealand approach, including by way of comparison with Canada, Australia and England and Wales. The New Zealand approach is presented as a principled and important example of adapting fundamental evidentiary principles and provisions in line with emerging social science evidence. However, in light of the general concerns surrounding this class of evidence, ultimately further safeguards are still needed","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"25 1","pages":"217 - 238"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/13657127211011236","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49127465","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
An epistemological analysis of the use of reputation as evidence 声誉作为证据使用的认识论分析
IF 1.5 2区 社会学
International Journal of Evidence & Proof Pub Date : 2021-05-05 DOI: 10.1177/13657127211011219
Andrés Páez
{"title":"An epistemological analysis of the use of reputation as evidence","authors":"Andrés Páez","doi":"10.1177/13657127211011219","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127211011219","url":null,"abstract":"Rules 405(a) and 608(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence allow the use of testimony about a witness’s reputation to support or undermine his or her credibility in trial. This paper analyses the evidential weight of such testimony from the point of view of social epistemology and the theory of social networks. Together they provide the necessary elements to analyse how reputation is understood in this case, and to assess the epistemic foundation of a reputational attribution. The result of the analysis will be that reputational testimony is extremely weak from an epistemological point of view, and that in many cases there are more reliable substitutes that achieve a similar purpose. The obvious fix, in my view, is to eliminate the use of reputation testimony to support or undermine the credibility, honesty, chastity or peacefulness of a witness","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"25 1","pages":"200 - 216"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/13657127211011219","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43712644","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
To the exclusion of all others? DNA profile and transfer mechanics—R v Jones (William Francis) [2020] EWCA Crim 1021 (03 Aug 2020) 排除所有其他人?DNA图谱和转移机制- r v Jones (William Francis) [2020] EWCA Crim 1021 (03 Aug 2020)
IF 1.5 2区 社会学
International Journal of Evidence & Proof Pub Date : 2021-04-01 DOI: 10.1177/13657127211002288
Kyriakos N. Kotsoglou, C. McCartney
{"title":"To the exclusion of all others? DNA profile and transfer mechanics—R v Jones (William Francis) [2020] EWCA Crim 1021 (03 Aug 2020)","authors":"Kyriakos N. Kotsoglou, C. McCartney","doi":"10.1177/13657127211002288","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127211002288","url":null,"abstract":"This case note deals with doctrinal and inferential issues around the use of DNA in the criminal process, in particular DNA alone, as a case to answer.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"25 1","pages":"135 - 140"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/13657127211002288","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45984407","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Law enforcement investigation of non-sexual child abuse: Physical abuse, neglect and Abusive Head Trauma 非性虐待儿童的执法调查：身体虐待、忽视和虐待性头部创伤
IF 1.5 2区 社会学
International Journal of Evidence & Proof Pub Date : 2021-04-01 DOI: 10.1177/13657127211002284
S. Shaffer, N. S. Compo, J. Z. Klemfuss, Joanna Peplak, Julio Mejias
{"title":"Law enforcement investigation of non-sexual child abuse: Physical abuse, neglect and Abusive Head Trauma","authors":"S. Shaffer, N. S. Compo, J. Z. Klemfuss, Joanna Peplak, Julio Mejias","doi":"10.1177/13657127211002284","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127211002284","url":null,"abstract":"This study examined the experiences of law enforcement in investigating physical abuse, neglect and Abusive Head Trauma (AHT). Law enforcement (N = 388) in the United States were surveyed regarding case characteristics, investigative strategy, interrogative approaches, frequency/content of perpetrator admissions and interagency interaction across cases of physical abuse, neglect and AHT. Results revealed that exposure rates matched those of national statistics. AHT perpetrators reported to admit guilt less often than suspects of physical abuse and neglect. Participants reported that suspects explain physical abuse and AHT by referencing poor self-control as a common cause. Lack of financial resources was commonly reported as the explanation for neglect. Potentially coercive interviewing techniques were reported across abuse types but were more frequent in cases of AHT. AHT cases were reportedly hardest to prove/prosecute partially due to conflicting medical diagnoses. Potential implications for law enforcement investigative (interviewing) policies and future research are discussed.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"25 1","pages":"75 - 92"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/13657127211002284","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49082929","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Admissibility of confession evidence: Principles of hearsay and the rule of voluntariness 口供的可采性：道听途说原则与自愿性原则
IF 1.5 2区 社会学
International Journal of Evidence & Proof Pub Date : 2021-04-01 DOI: 10.1177/13657127211002287
J. Porter
{"title":"Admissibility of confession evidence: Principles of hearsay and the rule of voluntariness","authors":"J. Porter","doi":"10.1177/13657127211002287","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127211002287","url":null,"abstract":"The common law test of voluntariness has come to be associated with important policy rationales including the privilege against self-incrimination. However, when the test originated more than a century ago, it was a test concerned specifically with the truthfulness of confession evidence; which evidence was at that time adduced in the form of indirect oral testimony, that is, as hearsay. Given that, a century later, confession evidence is now mostly adduced in the form of an audiovisual recording that can be observed directly by the trial judge, rather than as indirect oral testimony, there may be capacity for a different emphasis regarding the question of admissibility. This article considers the law currently operating in Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia to see whether or not, in the form of an audiovisual recording, the exercise of judicial discretion as to the question of the admissibility of confession evidence might be supported if the common law test of voluntariness was not a strict test of exclusion.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"25 1","pages":"93 - 114"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/13657127211002287","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49348593","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Rethinking the relationship between reverse burdens and the presumption of innocence 再论逆向负担与无罪推定的关系
IF 1.5 2区 社会学
International Journal of Evidence & Proof Pub Date : 2021-04-01 DOI: 10.1177/13657127211002285
Jack Allen
{"title":"Rethinking the relationship between reverse burdens and the presumption of innocence","authors":"Jack Allen","doi":"10.1177/13657127211002285","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127211002285","url":null,"abstract":"Criminal lawyers regard burdens of proof placed on the accused with deep suspicion. Recently, this suspicion has spurred an interest in how to reconcile these so-called ‘reverse burdens’ with the rule that it is for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial. Though views on this differ among commentators, all reach their conclusions by reference to the presumption of innocence (PoI). Unfortunately, such analysis frequently falls prey to a serious error. Namely, the existing literature fails to adequately distinguish the thin conception of the PoI (a trial rule) from a thick PoI (a general norm of the criminal law) or ignores the distinction entirely. In either case, failure to appreciate this distinction and attend to its consequences raises significant doubt that existing analyses of reverse burdens are sound. This article addresses this failure and offers a fresh approach to reconciling reverse burdens and the PoI.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"25 1","pages":"115 - 134"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/13657127211002285","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43939923","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
The values of prediction in criminal cases 预测在刑事案件中的价值
IF 1.5 2区 社会学
International Journal of Evidence & Proof Pub Date : 2021-04-01 DOI: 10.1177/13657127211002290
H. Jellema
{"title":"The values of prediction in criminal cases","authors":"H. Jellema","doi":"10.1177/13657127211002290","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127211002290","url":null,"abstract":"Like scientists, investigators and decision-makers in criminal cases both explain known evidence and use the resulting explanations to make novel predictions. Philosophers of science have made much of this distinction, arguing that hypotheses which lead to successful predictions are—all else being equal—epistemically superior to those that merely explain known data. Their ideas also offer important lessons for criminal evidence scholarship. This article distinguishes three values of prediction over explaining known facts in criminal cases. First, witnesses who predict are—all else being equal—more reliable than those who do not because they are less likely to be biased or lying. Second, investigators who only explain known facts run the risk of ‘fudging’ the scenarios that they formulate. Predictions can protect us against this danger. Third, carefully constructed predictions may help investigators to avoid confirmation bias. This article ends with a case study of the murder of Hae Min Lee.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"25 1","pages":"163 - 179"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/13657127211002290","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46081299","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
首页 上一页 下一页 尾页
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
相关产品
×
本文献相关产品
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