How should scientific evidence – or rather, a scientific hypothesis – be treated by the judge (or juror) who deals with it? Without dwelling on how this type of evidence enters the trial, the paper will expand on the judicial evaluation of scientific evidence. The Author retains that the ‘reinforced reasoning’ approach (a decision method structured by necessary steps, made up of arguments concerning salient aspects of the case under examination and which must be appreciated in order to decide) is also applicable in this matter.

How judges (should) deal with scientific evidence / Marco Cecchi. - In: BIOLAW JOURNAL. - ISSN 2284-4503. - ELETTRONICO. - (2022), pp. 15-25.

How judges (should) deal with scientific evidence

Marco Cecchi
2022

Abstract

How should scientific evidence – or rather, a scientific hypothesis – be treated by the judge (or juror) who deals with it? Without dwelling on how this type of evidence enters the trial, the paper will expand on the judicial evaluation of scientific evidence. The Author retains that the ‘reinforced reasoning’ approach (a decision method structured by necessary steps, made up of arguments concerning salient aspects of the case under examination and which must be appreciated in order to decide) is also applicable in this matter.
2022
15
25
Marco Cecchi
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
BLJ (1).pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Pdf editoriale (Version of record)
Licenza: Open Access
Dimensione 539.58 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
539.58 kB Adobe PDF

I documenti in FLORE sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificatore per citare o creare un link a questa risorsa: https://hdl.handle.net/2158/1273224
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact