Reply to the Comments on Epistemic Ambitions of the Criminal Trial: Truth, Proof and Rights
Descargas
Resumen
This article sets out to reply to the comments by Antony Duff, Sabine Gless, John Jackson and Thomas Weigend on my article «Epistemic Ambitions of the Criminal Trial». It begins by examining the various positions of the commentators to the question of the aim(s) of the criminal trial before going on to consider the limits of instrumentalist and proceduralist approaches and to re-examine the right-based conception of trials. It concludes by considering the implications of this account of criminal trials.
Palabras clave
criminal proceedings, criminal evidence, human rights, truthCitas
Cruft, R. (2011). Introduction. In R. Cruft, M.H. Kramer and M.R. Reiff (eds.), Crime, Punishment, and Responsibility: The Jurisprudence of Antony Duff. Oxford University Press.
Duff, R.A., Farmer, L., Marshall, S. and Tadros, V. (2007). The Trial on Trial (vol 3): Towards a Normative Theory of the Trial. Hart Publishing.
Duff, R.A. (1986). Trials and Punishments. Cambridge University Press.
Duff, R.A. (2009). Answering for Crime. Hart Publishing.
Duff, R.A. (2018). The Realm of Criminal Law. Oxford University Press.
Duff, R.A. (2023). What’s so special about the Criminal Trial? A Comment on Sarah Summers “Epistemic Ambitions of the Criminal Trial: Truth, Proof, and Rights”. Quaestio Facti: International Journal of Legal Reasoning, 5, pp. 159-168.
Dworkin, R. (1985). A Matter of Principle. Harvard University Press.
Farmer, L. (2007). Criminal Responsibility and Proof of Guilty’. In M.D. Dubber and L. Farmer (eds.), Modern Histories of Crime and Punishment. Stanford University Press.
Farmer, L. (2016). Making the Modern Criminal Law. Oxford University Press.
Gless, S. (2023). Could Robot Judges Believe? Epistemic Ambitions of the Criminal Trial as we Approach the Digital Age. A Comment on Sarah Summers “Epistemic Ambitions of the Criminal Trials: Truth, Proof, and Rights”. Quaestio Facti: International Journal of Legal Reasoning, 5, pp. 169-179.
Habermas, J. (1998). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (trans. W Rehg). MIT Press.
Hildebrand, D.L. (2000). Putnam, Pragmatism, and Dewey. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 36(1), pp. 109-132
Hintikka, J. (2002). What is truth? Stay for An Answer. In R. Schantz (ed,), What is Truth?. Walter de Gruyter.
Jackson, J.D. (2023). Truth, Proof, Rights and the Rule of Law in Criminal Adjudication. A Comment on Sarah Summers “Epistemic Ambitions of the Criminal Trials: Truth, Proof, and Rights”. Quaestio Facti: International Journal of Legal Reasoning, 5, pp. 181-188.
Jaconelli, J. (2003). What is a Trial? In M. Mulholland and B. Pullan (Eds.), The Trial in History: England and Europe from the Thirteenth to the Seventeenth Century. Manchester University Press.
James, W. (1907 [1975]). Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. Longmans, Green & Co.; reprinted Harvard University Press.
Summers, S. (2023). The Epistemic Ambitions of the Criminal Trial: Proof, Truth and Rights. Quaestio Facti: International Journal of Legal Reasoning, 4, pp. 249-271.
Tadros, V. and Tierney S. (2004). Presumption of Innocence and the Human Rights Act, Modern Law Review, 67(4), pp. 402-434.
Weigend, T. (2023). Accuracy and Fairness—Siamese Twins? A Comment on Sarah Summers “Epistemic Ambitions of the Criminal Trial: Truth, Proof, and Rights”. Quaestio Facti: International Journal of Legal Reasoning, 5, pp. 189-199
Weissbrodt, D.S. and Hallendorff, M. (1999). Travaux Préparatoires of the Fair Trial Provisions—Article 8 to 11—of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 21(4), pp. 1061-1096.
Law & Jurisprudence
United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration on Human Rights [UDHR]. https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/2021/03/udhr.pdf
European Convention on Human Rights [ECHR] (1950). https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_eng
AP, MP and TP and EL, RL and JO- L v Switzerland, 71/1996/690/882, European Court of Human Rights, 29 August 1997
GIEM SRL and Others v Italy, nº 1828/ 06, 34163/ 07, and 19029/11, European Court of Human Rights, 28 June 2018
DOI
https://doi.org/10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i6.22992Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2024 Sarah Jane Summers
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.