DNA as ‘ready-made evidence’: An analysis of Portuguese judges’ views

IF 0.7 2区 社会学 Q2 LAW International Journal of Evidence & Proof Pub Date : 2021-12-30 DOI:10.1177/13657127211070331
Susana Costa
{"title":"DNA as ‘ready-made evidence’: An analysis of Portuguese judges’ views","authors":"Susana Costa","doi":"10.1177/13657127211070331","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The introduction of biological evidence in judicial settings raises particular modes of entanglement between professional cultures and perceptions of the probative value of evidence. When DNA evidence reaches court, it also challenges the perceived margins of critical assessment of the work and understandings of previous links in the chain of custody, like the criminal police, forensic experts and the public prosecution services. Given the apparent neutrality of judicial institutions, how do Portuguese judges perceive and value biological evidence? And how do judges see their articulation with other operators of the criminal justice system? An analysis of 14 interviews carried out with Portuguese judges reveals the challenges in the evaluation of biological evidence, which is characterised as a ‘safe haven’, grounded as it is on an indisputable scientific authority. The suggestion of the presence of a cultural rift emerges, which, taken with the work of other epistemic cultures, leads to biological evidence being seen as ‘ready-made evidence’ on its arrival in court, thus limiting the role of judges in its appraisal.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"26 1","pages":"121 - 135"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127211070331","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The introduction of biological evidence in judicial settings raises particular modes of entanglement between professional cultures and perceptions of the probative value of evidence. When DNA evidence reaches court, it also challenges the perceived margins of critical assessment of the work and understandings of previous links in the chain of custody, like the criminal police, forensic experts and the public prosecution services. Given the apparent neutrality of judicial institutions, how do Portuguese judges perceive and value biological evidence? And how do judges see their articulation with other operators of the criminal justice system? An analysis of 14 interviews carried out with Portuguese judges reveals the challenges in the evaluation of biological evidence, which is characterised as a ‘safe haven’, grounded as it is on an indisputable scientific authority. The suggestion of the presence of a cultural rift emerges, which, taken with the work of other epistemic cultures, leads to biological evidence being seen as ‘ready-made evidence’ on its arrival in court, thus limiting the role of judges in its appraisal.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
DNA作为“现成证据”:对葡萄牙法官观点的分析
在司法环境中引入生物证据引发了专业文化与证据的证明价值观念之间的特殊纠缠模式。当DNA证据呈上法庭时,它也挑战了人们对工作的批判性评估以及对监管链中先前环节(如刑事警察、法医专家和公诉部门)的理解的认知边缘。鉴于司法机构的明显中立性,葡萄牙法官如何看待和重视生物证据?法官如何看待他们与刑事司法系统的其他操作者之间的关系?对葡萄牙法官进行的14次访谈的分析揭示了生物证据评估中的挑战,生物证据被描述为“避风港”,因为它是建立在无可争议的科学权威之上的。文化裂痕的存在的暗示出现了,这与其他认知文化的工作一起,导致生物证据被视为“现成的证据”,从而限制了法官在评估中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
20.00%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
Preponderance, proportionality, stepwise liability Stepwise liability: Between the preponderance rule and proportional liability The skewing effect of outcome evidence The economic case for conviction multiplicity What matters for assessing insider witnesses? Results of an experimental vignette study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1