期刊文献+

争议中运用的社会科学证据——评《科学证据与法律的平等保护》 被引量:3

Social scientific evidence used in dispute——book review of scientific evidence and equal protection of the law
原文传递
导出
摘要 《科学证据与法律的平等保护》是由美国学者昂舍塔所撰写的关于社会科学证据的著作。该书立足于公法视角,对用于证明"立法事实"的社会科学证据的理论及实务问题进行了深刻的阐释。该书不仅展现了社会科学证据的五大实践方面的功能,同时也指出了在实务中运用这类证据所面临的诸多方面的争议。为了令社会科学证据在诉讼实务中真正起到作用,证据规则的完善是必由之路。该书尽管着眼于法官造法体制中"立法事实"的证明,但对中国相关诉讼制度及证据规则的完善仍具有重要的参考意义。 Scientific Evidence and Equal Protection of the Law is a book written by American scholar Angelo N.Ancheta on social scientific evidence.Based on the perspective of public law,this book gives profound interpretation on the theoretical and practical issues of social scientific evidence.Not only does this book reveals five practical functions of social scientific evidence,but it also shows various controversies that such evidence confronts in practice.In order to make social scientific evidence really work in litigations,the inevitable course must be the perfection of evidence rules.Although the book focuses on proof of legislative facts in the judge-made law system,but it still provides good reference to China in improving its litigation system and evidence rules.
作者 梁坤 Liang Kun.(The Criminal Investigation Institute of Southwest University of Political Science and Law, Chongqing 401120.)
出处 《证据科学》 2017年第1期22-29,共8页 Evidence Science
基金 重庆高校物证技术创新团队项目(KJTD201301)
关键词 社会科学证据 功能 争议 证据规则 Social scientific evidence Function Controversy Evidence rules
  • 相关文献

参考文献1

二级参考文献12

  • 1Edward J. Imwinkelried,王进喜,甄秦峰.从过去30年美国使用专家证言的法律经历中应吸取的教训[J].证据科学,2007(5):181-209. 被引量:15
  • 2.United States v.United Shoe Machinery Corp[].FSupp(DMass).
  • 3Sandra Edelman.FAILURE TO CONDUCT A SURVEY IN TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT CASES:A CRITIQUE OF THE ADVERSE INFERENCE[].Trademark Rep.2000
  • 4.Daubert v.Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,Inc[].US.1993
  • 5Faigman,D. L.To have and have not: Assessing the value of social science to the law as science and policy[].Emory Law Journal.1989
  • 6Angelo N Ancheta.Scientific Evidence and Equal Protection of the Law[]..2006
  • 7.Muller v. Oregon[].US.1908
  • 8Rosen,Paul L. The Supreme Court and Social Science . 1972
  • 9Zeisel,Hans.The Uniqueness of Survey Evidence[].Cornell Law Quarterly.1960
  • 10Wallace D.Loh.Social Research in the Judicial Process:Cases,Reading,and Text[]..1984

共引文献19

同被引文献111

引证文献3

二级引证文献34

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部