论文部分内容阅读
审判过程并非仅仅是为了“查明真相”。自从美国的法律系统开始使用科学证人以来,法律领域就面临着混乱的局面。自从Frye规则到Daubert标准再到Kumho Tire标准,乃至发展为修改后的《联邦证据规则》702条,尽管法律系统经历了上述诸多努力,人们仍然不会相信法律系统能够从科学信息中获得预期的收益。科学主张和理论或真或假,它们的真或假是一个客观的问题。法律裁决可以断定法律真理为真,也可以断定“所谓的科学真理”为真。只有科学命题所描述的自然界现象和事件的性质——而非有关证据可靠性的法律裁决,也非法庭上的论证和交叉询问——能够证明真的科学命题为真,证明假的科学命题为假。
The trial process is not just for “finding out the truth.” Since the legal system in the United States began to use scientific witnesses, the legal field has faced chaos. From the Frye rules to the Daubert standards to the Kumho Tire standards and even to the 702 rules of the Federal Rules of Evidence revised, although the legal system has undergone the above efforts, people still can not believe that the legal system can obtain the expected results from scientific information income. Scientific claims and theories are true or false, and their truth or falsehood is an objective question. Legal rulings can conclude that the legal truth is true, or that “so-called scientific truth” is true. Only the phenomena of nature and the nature of events described by scientific propositions-not legal decisions on the reliability of evidence, nor on-court argument and cross-examination-can prove that true scientific propositions are true and that false scientific propositions are false.