Coherence in Legal Evidence

This chapter discusses the concept of coherence and its role in evidential reasoning in law. It examines three main approaches to coherence, namely, structural coherence, narrative coherence, and coherence as constraint satisfaction, and argues that coherence as constraint satisfaction provides an account of the kind of coherence that is relevant to legal fact-finding that is both descriptively adequate and normatively appealing. Next, it addresses some problems concerning the relation between coherence and inference, coherence and virtue, and coherence and truth in the context of legal factfinding. More specifically, it examines three main objections facing a coherentist account of inference, i.e., conservatism, circularity and unfeasibility, and conceptualizes it as an explanatory kind of inference. Then, it articulates a problem that has not been traditionally discussed in the coherentist literature, to wit, the coherence bias, and argues that virtue coherentism has the resources to effectively counteract it. Last, it defends the coherentist approach to evidence and legal proof against three objections that put into question the truth-conduciveness of coherence, namely, the isolation or input objection, the alternative coherent systems objection, and the truth objection. The chapter concludes by suggesting some avenues for further research on coherence, evidence, and legal proof.

Inference to the Best Explanation, Relative Plausibility, and Probability

In many areas of life, from hard science to managing one’s everyday affairs, explanatory considerations help to guide inference. From the fact that some proposition would explain a given phenomenon we infer that the proposition is true. And when several propositions may explain a given phenomenon we infer the one that best explains it. Inferences all share the same structure, typically referred to as “abduction” or “inference to the best explanation.” Because legal proof falls somewhere between science and managing one’s everyday affairs, it should perhaps not be surprising that the juridical proof process involves similar inferential practices. This chapter juxtaposes an explanation-based account of juridical proof against different probability accounts, develops an argument about the descriptive superiority of the explanation-based account over its competitors, and sets forth the theoretical and practical implications of this argument.

Negotiating Jewishness through genetic testing in the State of Israel

In Israel, several hundred thousand citizens form a minority group that wishes to be acknowledged as Jewish by the state authorities. Most of them immigrated from the former Soviet Union and cannot provide sufficient evidence of their maternal ancestors’ affiliation with a Jewish community. This has a direct impact on their civil rights. Based on a scientific research article on matrilineal genetic markers among Eastern and Central European Jews, the rabbinical dean of an institute for advanced Jewish studies in Jerusalem proposed to accept, under certain conditions, the presence of specific genetic markers as legal proof of “Jewishness.” Genetic testing here is meant to become a tool for empowerment and (re)claiming Jewish status. This case raises many questions concerning a biological understanding of Judaism and shows how genetic ancestry testing could be used to uphold the religious orthodox narrative.

Peranan Alat Bukti Elektronik dalam Tindak Pidana Pencemaran Nama Baik

This study is included in the category of empirical legal research carried out to fulfill the following objectives, 1) Assessing the rules related to criminal act of defamation in the Information and Electronic Transactions Law, 2) Examining the process of legal proof in criminal act of defamation under the Law of Information and Electronic Transactions. From the results of data analysis, it can be concluded that along with the increasing number of criminal cases through online media, the enforcement of electronic documents as legal evidence becomes very important due to the absence of physical evidence. The rules regarding the criminal act of defamation are included in the "Law. No.11 / 2008 article 5 paragraph (1) and (2) on Information and Electronic Transactions "where the presence of this new law is an enlightenment related to online criminal cases (cybercrime). Then, it was also found that only if the use of trial evidence was in accordance with the existing regulations in Indonesia, then proof of a criminal act, especially defamation, could be said to be legitimate. Substantially, defamation is classified as a criminal offense, so it is necessary to have a way of proof if the case occurred is not physically but through online media (Cybercrime).

Medicolegal Issues in Maxillofacial Surgery

Every profession is governed by a set of rules and regulations, and the same applies to the field of maxillofacial surgery. The young surgeon must therefore be aware of what legal requirements he/she must fulfil while practising the profession. Maxillofacial surgery is a challenging field that straddles both medicine and surgery, and therefore surgeons must be very aware of the legal scope of this field. Record keeping such as the informed consent and procedure notes are important legal requirements and must be maintained to provide legal proof of service and respect patient’s rights Maxillofacial surgeons play an important role as expert witnesses in cases of violence that have affected the head and neck region. In addition to all these legal requirements, the maxillofacial surgeon is also extremely vulnerable to civil or criminal litigation in the form of negligence. Surgeons must be aware of their duties and rights. They must also be familiar with legal issues like negligence and how to deal with it.

The Timeless Quest for Truth in a World of Doubt: Re-Examining Modes of Proof in the Medieval Era

This article presents a brief overview of historical methods of legal proof prior to and soon after the Norman Conquest of England in October 1066. Through an examination of the rituals of compurgation and the ordeal, which were techniques designed to discover truth prior to the establishment of the inquisition in medieval Europe and the common law jury trial in England, the human quest for intellectual conviction has been indelibly with us since the days of antiquity. And, whichever method to ascertain truth is ultimately utilized – compurgation or ordeal, inquisition or cross-examination, trial by judge or by jury – the law’s enduring search for certainty amidst a world of doubt owes much to the history and times of William the Conqueror.