Justification, Coherence, and Epistemic Responsibility in Legal Fact-Finding

IF 1.3 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Episteme-A Journal of Individual and Social Epistemology Pub Date : 2008-10-01 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.2489867
Amalia Amaya
{"title":"Justification, Coherence, and Epistemic Responsibility in Legal Fact-Finding","authors":"Amalia Amaya","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2489867","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper argues for a coherentist theory of the justification of evidentiary judgments in law, according to which a hypothesis about the events being litigated is justified if and only if it is such that an epistemically responsible fact-finder might have accepted it as justified by virtue of its coherence in like circumstances. It claims that this version of coherentism has the resources to address a main problem facing coherence theories of evidence and legal proof, namely, the problem of the coherence bias. The paper then develops an aretaic approach to the standards of epistemic responsibility which govern legal factfinding. It concludes by exploring some implications of the proposed account of the justification of evidentiary judgments in law for the epistemology of legal proof.","PeriodicalId":46716,"journal":{"name":"Episteme-A Journal of Individual and Social Epistemology","volume":"08 1","pages":"306 - 319"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2008-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Episteme-A Journal of Individual and Social Epistemology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2489867","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

This paper argues for a coherentist theory of the justification of evidentiary judgments in law, according to which a hypothesis about the events being litigated is justified if and only if it is such that an epistemically responsible fact-finder might have accepted it as justified by virtue of its coherence in like circumstances. It claims that this version of coherentism has the resources to address a main problem facing coherence theories of evidence and legal proof, namely, the problem of the coherence bias. The paper then develops an aretaic approach to the standards of epistemic responsibility which govern legal factfinding. It concludes by exploring some implications of the proposed account of the justification of evidentiary judgments in law for the epistemology of legal proof.
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
法律事实认定中的正当性、连贯性和认知责任
本文论证了法律上证据判断正当性的一致性理论,根据该理论,关于诉讼事件的假设是正当的,当且仅当它是这样的,一个认识论上负责任的事实发现者可能会接受它,因为它在类似情况下的一致性是正当的。它声称,这种版本的连贯性具有解决证据和法律证明的连贯性理论所面临的主要问题的资源,即连贯性偏见的问题。然后,本文发展了一种管理法律事实认定的认知责任标准的方法。最后,本文探讨了法律证明认识论中所提出的证据判断正当性解释的一些含义。
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
4.10
自引率
11.80%
发文量
48
期刊最新文献
The Value of Risk in Transformative Experience The Hard Problem of Access for Epistemological Disjunctivism In Defence of the Acquaintance Principle in Aesthetics Evidentialism, Judgment, and Suspension: Meeting Sosa's Challenges The Rationality of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy
×
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