http://hdl.handle.net/10256/17743 2025-07-27T04:06:06Z http://hdl.handle.net/10256/26497 Falsas creencias sobre la memoria de los testigos en profesionales y estudiantes de ciencias sociales y jurídicas Manzanero, Antonio L.; Alanzavez, Álvaro; Vázquez, Carmen; Ferrer Beltrán, Jordi Police officers with and without experience, trainee judges at the Judicial School, and un-dergraduate students in Psychology, Law, and Criminology were assessed on some of the main topics regarding the psychology of testimony. The results showed an average percentage of correct answers close to chance, with few differences between the various evaluated groups. The findings indicate that false beliefs about the functioning of witness memory are common, factors influencing the accuracy of statements and identifications are unknown, and there is limited understanding of the testimony capacity of child and elderly witnesses. It is concluded that many beliefs about witness memory are false. A mixed training in psychology, law, and police sciences could promote a better understanding of witness memory functioning, allowing for the minimization of errors in testimony assessment; Se evaluó a policías con y sin experiencia, jueces en formación en la Escuela Judicial y es-tudiantes del Grado de Psicología, Derecho y Criminología sobre algunos de los principales tópicos acerca de la psicología del testimonio. Los resultados mostraron un porcentaje medio de aciertos globales cercano al azar, con escasas diferencias entre los distintos colectivos evaluados. Los resulta-dos muestran que son frecuentes las falsas creencias sobre el funcionamiento de la memoria de los testigos, se desconocen los factores que influyen en la exactitud de las declaraciones e identificacio-nes y la capacidad para testificar de testigos infantiles y de avanzada edad. Se concluye que muchas de las creencias sobre la memoria de los testigos son falsas. Una formación mixta en psicología, derecho y ciencias policiales podría favorecer un mejor conocimiento sobre el funcionamiento de la memoria de los testigos que permita minimizar los errores en la valoración de los testimonios 2025-01-01T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/10256/26496 Taking the evolution of the standards of proof for a criminal conviction seriously Della Torre, Jacopo The article offers a diachronic and comparative analysis of different standards of proof for a criminal conviction. The first part focuses on the attempt of medieval and early modern Ro-man-canon systems to clarify this type of rule through a network of legal proofs. The second part analyses the origins of the main standards for a criminal conviction used today: moral certainty, beyond reasonable doubt and intime conviction. The final part looks to the future, asking whether traditional decision-making criteria should be maintained or replaced by new ones based on the principles of contemporary epistemology 2025-01-01T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/10256/26495 Epistemic injustice in the criminal trial: engaging with Gonzales Rose, Herdy, Jalloh and Owusu-Bempah Picinali, Federico Jasmine Gonzales Rose, Rachel Herdy, Tareeq Jalloh and Abenaa Owusu-Bempah have each written a paper commenting on my essay «Evidential Reasoning, Testimonial Injustice and the Fairness of the Criminal Trial», which appeared in Quaestio Facti in 2024. In this reply I engage with their insightful works. I discuss the advantages of framing in terms of «contributory injustice» the scenarios analysed in my original essay. I briefly study the conditions for the existence of a correlation between credibility excess and credibility deficit. And I provide the sketch of a theory of trial fairness, which I am currently developing elsewhere 2025-01-01T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/10256/26494 La causalidad y normatividad en la prueba tributaria: reflexiones a partir de las reglas de exclusión probatoria Delgado Manteiga, Serrana This article addresses the problem of the exclusionary rule when applied to the case of tax evidence. It emphasizes that, given that Tax Administrations develop procedures for obtaining evidence for those who enjoy special prerogatives that individuals do not have, it is necessary to distinguish between causation and the normativity of evidence. Based on the concepts of consti-tutive and institutional rules and on the distinction between action and description of the action, I conclude that the same evidentiary fact can be licit or illicit evidence depending on the institu-tional framework in which it is inserted and that it is necessary to distinguish causal connection from normative connection (the latter understood as something different from the connection of illegality that dogmatics and jurisprudence constructed); El presente artículo aborda el problema de la regla de exclusión probatoria cuando se aplica al caso de la prueba tributaria. Enfatiza en que, dado que las Administraciones Tributarias desarrollan procedimientos de obtención de prueba para los que gozan de prerrogativas especiales que no tienen los particulares, se impone distinguir entre la causalidad y la normatividad de la prueba. Basándome en los conceptos de reglas constitutivas e institucionales y en la distinción en-tre acción y descripción de la acción, concluyo en que un mismo hecho probatorio puede ser una prueba lícita o ilícita según el marco institucional en el que se inserta y que es necesario distinguir conexión causal de conexión normativa (entendida esta última como algo diferente a la conexión de antijuridicidad que construyó la dogmática y la jurisprudencia) 2025-01-01T00:00:00Z