论文部分内容阅读
在美国法律文化塑造下的对抗制诉讼制度和科学的调查程序之间存在着紧张关系(tension),在法律所关注的裁决终局性(finality)和科学所追求的持续性纠错(open-minded fallibilism)之间存在着紧张关系。长期以来,法律界都试图通过可采性法律规则归化科学证言,结果导致联邦法官担负起广泛的审查职责;近期,法庭指定专家的制度实践导致对抗制度做出某些修正,这种制度实践已经被批评为“带有纠问色彩”(inquisitorial),甚至“违背了民主的要求”(undemocratic)。在分析这些制度利弊的过程中,我们有必要考察其他法律系统的经验教训。
There is a tension between the adversarial system of litigation and the scientific investigation procedure modeled by the American legal culture. In the context of the finality of law concerns and the open-minded fallibilism) between the tension. For a long time, the legal community has attempted to naturalize scientific testimony through the admissibility of legal rules, resulting in a wide range of censorship responsibilities for federal judges. In the recent past, the institutional practice of the court-appointed experts led to certain modifications to the adversarial system, Has been criticized as “inquisitorial” or even “undemocratic.” In analyzing the pros and cons of these systems, we need to examine the lessons learned from other legal systems.