论文部分内容阅读
法庭科学家和证据法学者所处的是两个不同的世界,就像英国和美国一样,由一种共通的语言划分开来。虽然在一些重要方面彼此关联,但法庭科学和证据法学作为两个独立的学科,有着各自独特的构造和演进,关注不同的问题并运用各具特色的认识论。因此,这两个学科之间存在着自说自话的重大风险。该风险的迹象体现在了法庭科学家与证据法学者之间时常沟通不畅。“证据法”的概念对于法庭科学和证据法学而言均至关重要,且在这两个学科中均被高频地运用。本文通过聚焦“证据法的法域范围”之基础概念讨论,希望造成该学科间冲突的个别成因能够明朗化,并诚挚地期盼这样做能有利于法庭科学与证据法学学科之间更有效地交流。
Forensic and evidence law scholars are in two different worlds, just like Britain and the United States, separated by a common language. Although related in some important respects to each other, forensic science and evidence jurisprudence as two separate disciplines have their own unique structure and evolution, focusing on different issues and applying distinctive epistemologies. Therefore, there is a significant risk of being self-critical between the two disciplines. The sign of this risk is reflected in the poor communication between forensic scientists and evidence law scholars. The notion of “law of evidence” is crucial to both forensic and evidence jurisprudence, and is used at both frequencies in both disciplines. By focusing on the fundamental concepts of “jurisprudential scope of evidence law”, this article hopes to clarify the individual causes of this interdisciplinary conflict and sincerely hopes that doing so will benefit the effectiveness of forensic and evidence jurisprudence disciplines To exchange.