Evaluation of Evidence - Pre-Modern and Modern Approaches

Well-chosen negative legal proof rules can be useful procedural safeguards. They existed in both pre-modern and modern criminal procedures.

Table des matières

Prologue; 1. The origin of Roman-canon legal proof for criminal cases; 2. Epistemic foundations; 3. Orientation in the labryinth; 4. The two-eyewitnesses rule; 5. The probative impact of confessions; 6. The negative impact of legal proof; 7. Roman-canon rejection of persuasive evidence; 8. Evading the Roman-canon full proof standard; 9. Recapitulation; 10. Continental successors to Roman-canon legal proof; 11. Roman-canon legal proof and common law evidence; Epilogue.

A propos de l'auteur

Mirjan Damaška is Sterling Professor Emeritus of Law and Professorial Lecturer in Law at Yale Law School. He is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a member of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts and the International Academy of Comparative Law. He is the author of over 100 articles and six books, including The Faces of Justice and State Authority(1986) and Evidence Law Adrift (1997).

Résumé

For legal scholars as well as non-academic lawyers, this book deals with the question of whether the evaluation of evidence should be rule-free or rule-bound. Distinguishing positive and negative legal proof, it proposes that the latter will have a bright future in view of likely scientific and technological advances.

Détails du produit

• Auteurs: Mirjan Damaka, Mirjan Damaska, Mirjan (Yale University Damaska, Mirjan Damaška
• Edition: Cambridge University Press ELT
• Langues: Anglais
• Format d'édition: Livre Relié
• Sortie: 31.12.2018
• EAN: 9781108497282
• ISBN: 978-1-108-49728-2
• Pages: 160
• Thèmes: Ascl Studies in Comparative La; ASCL Studies in Comparative Law; ASCL Studies in Comparative Law; Ascl Studies in Comparative La
• Catégories: Sciences sociales, droit, économie > Droit > Général, dictionnaires; Rechtsvergleichung, LAW / Evidence, comparative law, Criminal Procedure: Law Of Evidence