http://hdl.handle.net/10256/23144 2025-08-08T09:35:27Z 2025-08-08T09:35:27Z Weigend, Thomas http://hdl.handle.net/10256/24413 2024-02-27T14:08:20Z 2023-06-16T00:00:00Z

Accuracy and fairness-siamese twins?: a comment on Sarah Summers "epistemic ambitions of the criminal trial: truth, proof, and rights" Weigend, Thomas

2023-06-16T00:00:00Z Gless, Sabine http://hdl.handle.net/10256/24412 2024-02-27T14:01:14Z 2023-03-13T00:00:00Z

Could robot judges believe? Epistemic ambitions of the criminal trial as we approach the digital age: a comment on Sarah Summers "epistemic ambitions of the criminal trial: truth, proof, and rights" Gless, Sabine Criminal proof is unique, in that it must be able to account for the justification of both: accurate fact-finding and a fair trial. This is Sarah Summers’ main message in her article on the epistemic ambitions of the criminal trial, which focusses on belief as a sort of proxy for societal ac-ceptance of truth as a set of facts established by compliance to procedural rules. This commentary tests her finding by scrutinizing whether it is conceivable that robots, complying to all rules, assist in fact-finding with a specific form of legal belief based on a sophisticated probability weighting opaque to humans. The result is in accordance with Sarah Summers: as long as robots cannot explain their beliefs, any criminal proof based on them flounders as it can neither be part of a fair trial nor ensure acceptance in the existing institutional framework

2023-03-13T00:00:00Z Richter, Anna http://hdl.handle.net/10256/24410 2024-02-27T13:29:03Z 2023-06-16T00:00:00Z

El arrepentido: entre prueba y error Richter, Anna In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the concept of the "Crown witness", which is also reflected in its inclusion—explicitly or implicitly—in different legal systems. Along with this, the discussions around this new tool of criminal investigation has increased, and one of the most recurrent questions is whether and how the implementation of the Crown witness in our legal systems can be justified. In particular, I am interested in two things. On the one hand, I will ry to sort and group or systematise the different positions of justification or rejection of the Crown witness and, on the other, I will search for ways to assess their convincing force. I hope that these tentative observations will be useful for a recurrent problem in the analysis of procedures and evi-dence: the risk of accepting or not accepting certain errors and their link with standards of proof; En los últimos años, la figura del arrepentido ha recibido un mayor interés, que también se refleja en su inclusión —de manera explícita o implícita— en diferentes ordenamientos jurí-dicos. Junto con ello aumentaron las discusiones alrededor de esta nueva herramienta de investi-gación de delitos y una de las preguntas más recurrentes versa sobre si y cómo se puede justificar la implementación de la delación premiada en nuestros ordenamientos jurídicos. En especial, me interesan dos cosas. Por un lado, intentaré ordenar y agrupar o sistematizar las diferentes posturas de aceptación o rechazo de la figura y, por otro, buscaré formas para evaluar la aceptabilidad de sus argumentos. Espero que estas observaciones tentativas tengan utilidad para un problema recu-rrente en el análisis de los procedimientos y la prueba: el riesgo de aceptar o no ciertos errores y su vinculación con los estándares de prueba

2023-06-16T00:00:00Z Resende Salgado, Daniel de http://hdl.handle.net/10256/24409 2024-02-27T13:23:20Z 2023-06-30T00:00:00Z

Fundamentos à admissibilidade da metaprova no processo penal Resende Salgado, Daniel de This paper is based on the premise that meta-evidence aims to reinforce or weaken the inferential strength of a given evidence, influencing its level of reliability. The subsidiary and peripheral character of the meta-evidence indicates that its relevance derives from the relevance of the evidence, a particularity that influences the analysis of its admission in the course of the pro-bationary procedure; O presente artigo parte da premissa de que a metaprova objetiva reforçar ou debilitar a força inferencial de uma determinada prova, influenciando seu nível de fiabilidade. O caráter subsidiário e periférico da metaprova indica que a sua relevância deriva da relevância da prova, particularidade que influi na análise de sua admissão no curso do procedimento probatório

2023-06-30T00:00:00Z