Validating digital evidence for legal argument
نویسنده
چکیده
Digital evidence is now common in legal cases, but the understanding of the legal fraternity as to how far conventional ideas of evidence can be extended into the digital domain lags behind. Evidence determines the truth of an issue but its weight is subject to examination and verification through existing forms of legal argument. There is a need for a practical ‘roadmap’ that can guide the legal practitioner in identifying digital evidence relevant to support a case and in assessing its weight. A vital, but sometimes under estimated stage is that of validating the evidence before evaluating its weight. In this paper we describe a process by which the validation of relevant evidence required for legal argument can be facilitated, by an interrogative approach that ensures the chain of reasoning is sustained.
منابع مشابه
Establishing an Argument-Based Validity Approach for a Low-Stake Test of Collocational Behavior
Most of the validation studies conducted across varying test application contexts are usually framed within the traditional conceptualization of validity and therefore lack a comprehensive framework to focus on test score interpretations and test score use. This study aimed at developing and validating a collocational behavior test (CBT), drawing on Kane's argument-based approach to validity. F...
متن کاملDigital Forensics Tools The Legal Argument
This paper addresses digital forensic analysis tools and their use in a legal setting. To enter scientific evidence into a United States court, a tool must be reliable and relevant. The reliability of evidence is tested by applying “Daubert” guidelines. To date, there have been few legal challenges to digital evidence, but as the field matures this will likely change. This paper examines the Da...
متن کاملLegal idioms: a framework for evidential reasoning
How do people make legal judgments based on complex bodies of interrelated evidence? This paper outlines a novel framework for evidential reasoning using causal idioms. These idioms are based on the qualitative graphical component of Bayesian networks, and are tailored to the legal context. They can be combined and reused to model complex bodies of legal evidence. This approach is applied to wi...
متن کاملCapturing Critical Questions in Bayesian Network Fragments
Legal reasoning with evidence can be a challenging task. We study the relation between two formal approaches that can aid the construction of legal proof: argumentation and Bayesian networks (BNs). Argument schemes are used to describe recurring patterns in argumentation. Critical questions for many argument schemes have been identified. Due to the increased use of statistical forensic evidence...
متن کاملHealth as Human Right; Legal Narrative of “Governance For Health” Logic
The "Legal language" has provided a strong supportive argument for right to health advocacy. In such a way that, human rights rules has been established as the most important globalized political value at the heart of the theory and practice of public health discourse. Its power of enforceability guaranties fair distribution of health resources in each country. At the same time, the right to he...
متن کامل