Reply to the comments on epistemic ambitions of the criminal trial: truth, proof and rights

• Autores: Sarah Summers
• Localización: Quaestio facti. Revista internacional sobre razonamiento probatorio, ISSN-e 2604-6202, Nº. 6, 2024, págs. 237-247
• Idioma: inglés
• DOI: 10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i6.22992
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Resumen

  • This article sets out to reply to the comments by Antony Duff, Sabine Gless, John Jack-son 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

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • Cruft, R. (2011). Introduction. In R. Cruft, M.H. Kramer and M.R. Reiff (eds.), Crime, Punishment, and Responsibility: The Jurisprudence of...
  • 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,...
  • 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....
  • 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...
  • 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...
  • Jaconelli, J. (2003). What is a Trial? In M. Mulholland and B. Pullan (Eds.), The Trial in History: England and Europe from the Thirteenth...
  • 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...
  • 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,...
  • Weissbrodt, D.S. and Hallendorff, M. (1999). Travaux Préparatoires of the Fair Trial Provisions—Article 8 to 11—of the Universal Declaration...
  • 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