Journal.fi
Not a member yet
93357 research outputs found
Sort by
Hypoteesit ja vaihtoehtoiset selitykset rikosasian näytön arvioinnissa
No full textHypotheses and alternative explanations in the evaluation of evidence in criminal casesThe article examines two evidence theories, the hypothesis method by Christian Diesen and the explanation model by Eivind Kolflaath, and evaluates their suitability to judicial decision-making practice from the legal, practical, and psychological perspectives. The article assesses the extent to which the theories offer tools that contribute to the quality of the court’s evaluation of evidence and the reduction of potential errors in it.
Both the hypothesis method and the explanation model rest on the process of falsification, i.e., the assessment, comparison, and exclusion of alternative hypotheses. The authors argue that both theories fulfil the minimum requirements for normative evidence theory: Their methods are natural to judges and compatible with Finnish criminal procedure, they enable the evaluation of evidence both individually and holistically, and they enable the use of epistemic criteria in the evaluation.
While the hypothesis method offers a structured reasoning process compatible with the Finnish criminal procedure, it fails to provide guidance on how to evaluate single pieces of evidence. The explanation model, instead, does not provide such a structured reasoning process, but its descriptive background makes it easy for decision-makers to employ. Moreover, the explanation model also offers principles for evaluating single pieces of evidence. Many of these principles are not applicable to all cases, and thus cannot act as normative rules. The model should thus guide decision-makers in making appropriate reservations and, when necessary, complement or replace the evaluation principles with scientific knowledge. Regardless of these shortcomings, the authors argue that the explanation model offers the most reliable and comprehensive evidence theory for decision-making in Finnish criminal procedure
Tasinkoprivilegin suojavaikutus ja osituksen moite
No full textLakimies-aikakauskirjan nuorten kirjoittajien palkinto 2022
Surviving spouse’s retention privilege in the distribution of matrimonial assets and its effectiveness during court proceedingsThe article re-examines a classic question of matrimonial property law, that is, under which conditions does the surviving spouse’s privilege to retain assets in the distribution of matrimonial assets (and not hand them over to the heirs of the first-deceased spouse) stay in effect if the surviving spouse also dies before the distribution has become res judicata. In the light of two preliminary rulings by the Supreme Court (KKO 2001:12 and KKO 2017:87), the author limits her examination to situations where the primary distribution of matrimonial assets has been completed but it has then been contested in court proceedings and the surviving spouse dies while these proceedings are still pending.
Drawing from an interpretation of section 103(2) of the Finnish Marriage Act, the author proposes that the privilege provision, whose main effect is to protect the financial security of the surviving spouse, also has another effect: She designates this its process-streamlining effect. The author concludes that it is justified that the process-streamlining effect applies both during the lifetime of the surviving spouse and after his or her death. Accordingly, the author argues that the surviving spouse’s retention privilege does not lapse merely because he or she dies and the outcome of the distribution of assets changes as a result of the court proceedings.
The author’s argument can be distinguished from the precedent ruling KKO 2001:12 in that she makes a distinction between situations where the surviving spouse dies before the primary distribution has been completed and where he or she dies after completion, but while court proceedings on that distribution are still pending. The author suggests that there may be a need for legislative work so that the issue of effectiveness of the retention privilege can be addressed in the light of new research data
Todistajankertomuksen luotettavuus: Henkilötodistelun selvittäminen, vastaanottaminen ja arviointi oikeuspsykologisen tutkimuksen valossa.
No full textLectio praecursori
Marjosola, Henna. Todistajankertomuksen luotettavuus : Henkilötodistelun selvittäminen, vastaanottaminen ja arviointi oikeuspsykologisen tutkimuksen valossa
No full textVirallisen vastaväittäjän, professori Minna Gränsin Helsingin yliopiston oikeustieteelliselle tiedekunnalle antama, 29.10.2021 päivätty lausunto vähäisin muutoksin
