University of Girona
Quaestio facti. Revista internacional sobre razonamiento probatorioNot a member yet
115 research outputs found
Sort by
Evidence Assessment and Standards of Proof: A Messy Issue
Get PDFThe article addresses three main questions. First: Why do some scholars and decision-makers take evidence assessment criteria as standards of proof and vice versa? The answer comes from the fact that some legal systems are more concerned with assessment criteria and others with standards; therefore jurists educated in different contexts tend to emphasize what they are more familiar with, and to assimilate to it what they are less familiar with. Second: Why do systems differ in those respects? Here the answer stems from the historical, institutional and procedural differences that explain why some systems are more concerned with assessment criteria and others with standards of proof. And third, assuming that both criteria and standards are necessary to legal decision-making about facts: How can a system work if it neglects one of these things? Here the Article argues that there is a functional connection between criteria and standards. The functional connection account is distinguished from a functional equivalence account, and some systems and jurisdictions are referred to in greater detail to support the functional connection claim.The article addresses three main questions. First: Why do some scholars and decision-makers take evidence assessment criteria as standards of proof and vice versa? The answer comes from the fact that some legal systems are more concerned with assessment criteria and others with standards; therefore jurists educated in different contexts tend to emphasize what they are more familiar with, and to assimilate to it what they are less familiar with. Second: Why do systems differ in those respects? Here the answer stems from the historical, institutional and procedural differences that explain why some systems are more concerned with assessment criteria and others with standards of proof. And third, assuming that both criteria and standards are necessary to legal decision-making about facts: How can a system work if it neglects one of these things? Here the Article argues that there is a functional connection between criteria and standards. The functional connection account is distinguished from a functional equivalence account, and some systems and jurisdictions are referred to in greater detail to support the functional connection claim.The article addresses three main questions. First: Why do some scholars and decision-makers take evidence assessment criteria as standards of proof and vice versa? The answer comes from the fact that some legal systems are more concerned with assessment criteria and others with standards; therefore jurists educated in different contexts tend to emphasize what they are more familiar with, and to assimilate to it what they are less familiar with. Second: Why do systems differ in those respects? Here the answer stems from the historical, institutional and procedural differences that explain why some systems are more concerned with assessment criteria and others with standards of proof. And third, assuming that both criteria and standards are necessary to legal decision-making about facts: How can a system work if it neglects one of these things? Here the Article argues that there is a functional connection between criteria and standards. The functional connection account is distinguished from a functional equivalence account, and some systems and jurisdictions are referred to in greater detail to support the functional connection claim.The article addresses three main questions. First: Why do some scholars and decision-makers take evidence assessment criteria as standards of proof and vice versa? The answer comes from the fact that some legal systems are more concerned with assessment criteria and others with standards; therefore jurists educated in different contexts tend to emphasize what they are more familiar with, and to assimilate to it what they are less familiar with. Second: Why do systems differ in those respects? Here the answer stems from the historical, institutional and procedural differences that explain why some systems are more concerned with assessment criteria and others with standards of proof. And third, assuming that both criteria and standards are necessary to legal decision-making about facts: How can a system work if it neglects one of these things? Here the Article argues that there is a functional connection between criteria and standards. The functional connection account is distinguished from a functional equivalence account, and some systems and jurisdictions are referred to in greater detail to support the functional connection claim
El testimonio único de la víctima en el proceso penal desde la perspectiva de género (2).: Respuesta a los comentarios sobre «El Testimonio único de la víctima en el proceso penal desde la perspectiva de género», publicados en Quaestio facti, 1/2020
Get PDFIn this paper, the author responds to the objections raised by Raymundo Gama, Roberta Casiraghi, Federico José Arena and Olga Fuentes Soriano to one of the theses formulated in the article «Single victim’s testimony and gender perspective in the criminal procedure (1)». Specifically, the thesis that the sole uncorroborated testimony is not sufficient for proof of guilt in a criminal proceeding as it cannot distort the presumption of innocence. The author concludes that approaching the law and its institutions with the tools provided by feminism can be a powerful engine of change for the achievement of a more equal legal system. At the same time, the author highlights that an uncritical reception of the contributions of gender perspective can contribute to the degradation of the constitutional criminal procedure model, masking the true roots of the problem of gender inequality.En el presente trabajo el autor da respuesta a las objeciones planteadas por Raymundo Gama, Roberta Casiraghi, Federico José Arena y Olga Fuentes Soriano a una de las tesis formuladas en el artículo «El testimonio único de la víctima en el proceso penal desde la perspectiva de género (1) ». En concreto, la tesis de que el testimonio único no corroborado no es suficiente para desvirtuar la presunción de inocencia. El autor concluye que el abordaje del derecho y sus instituciones con las herramientas que suministra el feminismo puede suponer un potente motor de cambio para la consecución de un derecho legal y judicial más igualitario. Al mismo tiempo, destaca que una acrítica recepción de los aportes de la perspectiva de género puede dar lugar a que acabe convirtiéndose en un instrumento más al servicio de la degradación del modelo constitucional procesal penal, enmascarando las verdaderas raíces del problema de la desigualdad de género
Repensando las máximas de experiencia
Get PDFThis study aims to analyze the concept beyond the term «maxims of experience». First, it attempts to settle how the term is currently understood by legal scholars. Secondly, it finds that a wide variety of concepts are being used and, consequently, examines the logical structure of the statements that are usually classified as maxims of experience and the role in evidence assessment. Afterwards, the essay seeks to explore if the term could be replaced by the concept of generalizations and choose a classification of these. Finally, the work warns about some risks in their use and some criteria are proposed for their application to legal fact reasoning.El trabajo se propone realizar un análisis del concepto subyacente al término «máximas de experiencia». En primer lugar, se intenta establecer el estado actual de la comprensión del término por parte de la doctrina. A partir de ello, se da cuenta de la diversidad de conceptos que se manejan y se propone evaluar la estructura lógica de los enunciados a los que se suele catalogar como máximas de experiencia y el rol que cumplen en la valoración de la prueba. A continuación, el texto busca explorar el reemplazo del término por el concepto de generalizaciones y escoge una clasificación de estas. Finalmente, se advierte acerca de algunos peligros en su utilización y se proponen ciertos criterios para su empleo en los razonamientos sobre hechos
"Déjame atravesar el viento con documentos": Propuestas para replantear la prueba documental del siglo XXI
Get PDFIn this article the author defends that using documents as evidence should demand analysis beyond the «paper», aiming at the evidential reasoning behind. Being so, in the first part the article presents the traditional premises about documents in civil law countries, criticizing them, after. In the second part, thinking on the phases of admission, production, and evaluation of evidence of documents used as evidence, the article presents criticisms and ideas for rethinking the form of working with documents in the civil law countries.En el presente artículo se defiende la necesidad de que los documentos sean analizados más allá del «papel», atendiendo al razonamiento probatorio que está por detrás. Así, en la primera parte se presentan y critican las premisas tradicionales. En la segunda, pensando en las fases de admisión, práctica y valoración de la prueba documental, se formulan críticas y propuestas para replantear la forma de trabajar con documentos en los países de civil law.En el presente artículo se defiende la necesidad de que los documentos sean analizados más allá del «papel», atendiendo al razonamiento probatorio que está por detrás. Así, en la primera parte se presentan y critican las premisas tradicionales. En la segunda, pensando en las fases de admisión, práctica y valoración de la prueba documental, se formulan críticas y propuestas para replantear la forma de trabajar con documentos en los países de civil law.En el presente artículo se defiende la necesidad de que los documentos sean analizados más allá del «papel», atendiendo al razonamiento probatorio que está por detrás. Así, en la primera parte se presentan y critican las premisas tradicionales. En la segunda, pensando en las fases de admisión, práctica y valoración de la prueba documental, se formulan críticas y propuestas para replantear la forma de trabajar con documentos en los países de civil law
Naturalized Epistemology and the Law of Evidence: A Reply to Pardo, Spellman, Muffato, and Enoch
Get PDFIn «Naturalized Epistemology and the Law of Evidence Revisited», the original target article for the various refutations that I comment on here, I revisited through a slightly different lens the subject of the article that I coauthored with Brian Leiter close to twenty years ago. That article has prompted four responses from Professors Pardo, Spellman, Muffato, and Enoch. Professors Pardo and Spellman basically accept the implications of the original article and offer useful but friendly amendments. Prof. Muffato apparently does not want to dispute over my ground and so changes the subject, and in doing so offers a number of interesting points. Only the fourth, Prof. Enoch, has the same doubts about the utility of my original article as I do of the genre that gave rise to it. I can thus be quite brief in discussing professors Pardo, Spellman, and Muffato, but it will take bit more effort to lay out the limits of Prof. Enoch’s analysis
A Critical Method for the Evaluation of Evidence: François Gorphe’s (1889-1959) Contribution to a Science of Proof à la française
Get PDFIn his 1924 book La critique du témoignage, the French judge François Gorphe (1889-1959) advocated the need that evaluation of evidence be based on the best scientific knowledge available. Drawing upon an extensive knowledge of the experiments conducted by contemporary forensic psychologists, Gorphe urged judges to consider forensic psychology when interrogating witnesses and, ultimately, when evaluating evidence. Gorphe imposed himself as one of the main promoters of a science of proof in France. This paper examines Gorphe’s contributions and the audience they received among forensic psychologists and criminologists in France and abroad. Despite their originality and anchoring in international scientific discussions, Gorphe’s views have not encouraged the creation of an academic domain interested in evidential reasoning in French law faculties. The paper concludes with an examination of the reasons for the limited posterity of Gorphe’s approach.In his 1924 book La critique du témoignage, the French judge François Gorphe (1889-1959) advocated the need that evaluation of evidence be based on the best scientific knowledge available. Drawing upon an extensive knowledge of the experiments conducted by contemporary forensic psychologists, Gorphe urged judges to consider forensic psychology when interrogating witnesses and, ultimately, when evaluating evidence. Gorphe imposed himself as one of the main promoters of a science of proof in France. This paper examines Gorphe’s contributions and the audience they received among forensic psychologists and criminologists in France and abroad. Despite their originality and anchoring in international scientific discussions, Gorphe’s views have not encouraged the creation of an academic domain interested in evidential reasoning in French law faculties. The paper concludes with an examination of the reasons for the limited posterity of Gorphe’s approach.In his 1924 book La critique du témoignage, the French judge François Gorphe (1889-1959) advocated the need that evaluation of evidence be based on the best scientific knowledge available. Drawing upon an extensive knowledge of the experiments conducted by contemporary forensic psychologists, Gorphe urged judges to consider forensic psychology when interrogating witnesses and, ultimately, when evaluating evidence. Gorphe imposed himself as one of the main promoters of a science of proof in France. This paper examines Gorphe’s contributions and the audience they received among forensic psychologists and criminologists in France and abroad. Despite their originality and anchoring in international scientific discussions, Gorphe’s views have not encouraged the creation of an academic domain interested in evidential reasoning in French law faculties. The paper concludes with an examination of the reasons for the limited posterity of Gorphe’s approach.In his 1924 book La critique du témoignage, the French judge François Gorphe (1889-1959) advocated the need that evaluation of evidence be based on the best scientific knowledge available. Drawing upon an extensive knowledge of the experiments conducted by contemporary forensic psychologists, Gorphe urged judges to consider forensic psychology when interrogating witnesses and, ultimately, when evaluating evidence. Gorphe imposed himself as one of the main promoters of a science of proof in France. This paper examines Gorphe’s contributions and the audience they received among forensic psychologists and criminologists in France and abroad. Despite their originality and anchoring in international scientific discussions, Gorphe’s views have not encouraged the creation of an academic domain interested in evidential reasoning in French law faculties. The paper concludes with an examination of the reasons for the limited posterity of Gorphe’s approach
(Un-)Interpretability in Expert Evidence: An Inquiry into the Frontiers of Evidential Assessment
Get PDFEvidence law regimes across several contemporary legal orders provide a host of doctrinal devices designed to probe various sorts and sources of information, especially with respect to their accuracy and reliability. These legal provisions, however, are vulnerable to or even tolerant towards uninterpretable evidence, that is evidence whose probative value cannot be assessed. This article critically examines and discusses the “littering paths” of uninterpretable evidence in legal proceedings. We point out the misinformative character and potentially misleading impact on criminal adjudication when using scientific evidence for purposes that, strictly speaking, the evidence cannot help with. We identify common causes and possible remedies and argue that to track uninterpretability, it is necessary to understand what exactly it means to say that a piece of evidence is probative in the procedural space of reasons, and how to draw the line between informative and non-informative items of evidence.Evidence law regimes across several contemporary legal orders provide a host of doctrinal devices designed to probe various sorts and sources of information, especially with respect to their accuracy and reliability. These legal provisions, however, are vulnerable to or even tolerant towards uninterpretable evidence, that is evidence whose probative value cannot be assessed. This article critically examines and discusses the “littering paths” of uninterpretable evidence in legal proceedings. We point out the misinformative character and potentially misleading impact on criminal adjudication when using scientific evidence for purposes that, strictly speaking, the evidence cannot help with. We identify common causes and possible remedies and argue that to track uninterpretability, it is necessary to understand what exactly it means to say that a piece of evidence is probative in the procedural space of reasons, and how to draw the line between informative and non-informative items of evidence.Evidence law regimes across several contemporary legal orders provide a host of doctrinal devices designed to probe various sorts and sources of information, especially with respect to their accuracy and reliability. These legal provisions, however, are vulnerable to or even tolerant towards uninterpretable evidence, that is evidence whose probative value cannot be assessed. This article critically examines and discusses the “littering paths” of uninterpretable evidence in legal proceedings. We point out the misinformative character and potentially misleading impact on criminal adjudication when using scientific evidence for purposes that, strictly speaking, the evidence cannot help with. We identify common causes and possible remedies and argue that to track uninterpretability, it is necessary to understand what exactly it means to say that a piece of evidence is probative in the procedural space of reasons, and how to draw the line between informative and non-informative items of evidence.Evidence law regimes across several contemporary legal orders provide a host of doctrinal devices designed to probe various sorts and sources of information, especially with respect to their accuracy and reliability. These legal provisions, however, are vulnerable to or even tolerant towards uninterpretable evidence, that is evidence whose probative value cannot be assessed. This article critically examines and discusses the “littering paths” of uninterpretable evidence in legal proceedings. We point out the misinformative character and potentially misleading impact on criminal adjudication when using scientific evidence for purposes that, strictly speaking, the evidence cannot help with. We identify common causes and possible remedies and argue that to track uninterpretability, it is necessary to understand what exactly it means to say that a piece of evidence is probative in the procedural space of reasons, and how to draw the line between informative and non-informative items of evidence
Strong, Weak, or Apparent Naturalization? Relative Plausibility Theory and Conceptual Analysis
Get PDFThis article focuses on the adoption of naturalized epistemology as a framework for the relative plausibility theory developed by Ron Allen. It questions both the distinctness of Allen’s way of theorizing from a common version of conceptual analysis and the compliance of relative plausibility theory with the “naturalistic” methodological requirement expressed by the “Results Continuity” thesis.