科学证据评估中的科学主义神话

IF 1.2 Q1 LAW
Fernando Luna Salas
{"title":"科学证据评估中的科学主义神话","authors":"Fernando Luna Salas","doi":"10.17981/JURIDCUC.14.1.2018.06","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This legal-reflective work, developed from a qualitative perspective with a literature review, aims at analyzing the rational attitude of judges regarding the scientific nature of the evidence. This paper sets out the difficulty encountered during the judiciary labor of justice administrators when evaluating the scientific evidence presented in different legal proceedings, since a set of extrajudicial information is required for that purpose. In most cases, this knowledge is non-existent. As a result, the judge is led to blindly trust what it is specified by the experts in their reports, thus, opening a door into the process to flawed evidence and allowing legal proceedings to be solved without a real assessment of them or the suitability of the expert.","PeriodicalId":40796,"journal":{"name":"Juridicas CUC","volume":"14 1","pages":"119-144"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"El mito del cientificismo en la valoración de la prueba científica\",\"authors\":\"Fernando Luna Salas\",\"doi\":\"10.17981/JURIDCUC.14.1.2018.06\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This legal-reflective work, developed from a qualitative perspective with a literature review, aims at analyzing the rational attitude of judges regarding the scientific nature of the evidence. This paper sets out the difficulty encountered during the judiciary labor of justice administrators when evaluating the scientific evidence presented in different legal proceedings, since a set of extrajudicial information is required for that purpose. In most cases, this knowledge is non-existent. As a result, the judge is led to blindly trust what it is specified by the experts in their reports, thus, opening a door into the process to flawed evidence and allowing legal proceedings to be solved without a real assessment of them or the suitability of the expert.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40796,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Juridicas CUC\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"119-144\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Juridicas CUC\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17981/JURIDCUC.14.1.2018.06\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Juridicas CUC","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17981/JURIDCUC.14.1.2018.06","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

这项法律反思工作是从定性的角度和文献综述发展起来的,旨在分析法官对证据科学性的理性态度。本文阐述了司法行政人员在评估不同法律程序中提出的科学证据时在司法工作中遇到的困难,因为为此需要一组法外信息。在大多数情况下,这种知识是不存在的。因此,法官被引导盲目相信专家在报告中所指明的内容,从而为有缺陷的证据打开了一扇大门,并允许在没有对其进行真正评估或专家是否适合的情况下解决法律诉讼。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
El mito del cientificismo en la valoración de la prueba científica
This legal-reflective work, developed from a qualitative perspective with a literature review, aims at analyzing the rational attitude of judges regarding the scientific nature of the evidence. This paper sets out the difficulty encountered during the judiciary labor of justice administrators when evaluating the scientific evidence presented in different legal proceedings, since a set of extrajudicial information is required for that purpose. In most cases, this knowledge is non-existent. As a result, the judge is led to blindly trust what it is specified by the experts in their reports, thus, opening a door into the process to flawed evidence and allowing legal proceedings to be solved without a real assessment of them or the suitability of the expert.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
50.00%
发文量
16
×
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