Legal research methods refer to a general term for disciplined and systematic procedures, approaches, means, techniques, and models used by researchers to acquire novel and reliable legal knowledge. Several theoretica...Legal research methods refer to a general term for disciplined and systematic procedures, approaches, means, techniques, and models used by researchers to acquire novel and reliable legal knowledge. Several theoretical debates on the originality of legal research methods go on as follows: Is one legal research method superior to another? Do legal research methods aim for methodological independence? Are legal research methods objective or subjective? Influenced by scientism, positivism is usually considered to be the only reasonable research method, but since law is different from science, only using positivist research approaches is insufficient for solving legal problems. Strictly speaking, a method that is appropriate for the research subject is a reasonable method. As one of the humanities and social sciences, law has similarities with other disciplines in terms of the scope of research;therefore, its research methods could be borrowed from other disciplines. However, law cannot ignore the development of its own unique research methods while retaining its advantages. Legal research methods are supposed to be objective because they should follow scientific standards and have objective arguments, but inevitably, legal research would be subjective and full of value judgments since it means subjective and creative activities of researchers. Of course, the choice of values should preferably be made in the context of value-freeness to ensure the organic combination of value-freeness and value judgment.展开更多
Legal practice comprises the normative activities of constructing and maintaining social order with the aim of achieving equity and justice. In terms of content, it can be divided into three categories： intellectual ...Legal practice comprises the normative activities of constructing and maintaining social order with the aim of achieving equity and justice. In terms of content, it can be divided into three categories： intellectual legal practice, normative legal practice, and applied legal practice. As an important factor supporting legal practice, legal theory has a complex interactive relationship with legal practice. The effect of legal theory on legal practice is realized through the intermediary, carrier and bridging functions of the rationality, wisdom and ideas of legal practice. Developing the concept of the ideal legal life is the inherent mission and method of legal practice thought.展开更多
This article investigates what might be characterised as ＂the forensic challenge＂ for criminal adjudication and clarifies its nature and scope. The ＂challenge＂ identified is complex, dynamic and multifaceted, enco...This article investigates what might be characterised as ＂the forensic challenge＂ for criminal adjudication and clarifies its nature and scope. The ＂challenge＂ identified is complex, dynamic and multifaceted, encompassing a variety of issues and debates concerning the ways in which forensic science evidence is validated, generated, presented, tested, evaluated and utilised in criminal proceedings. Common law evidentiary principles governing the admissibility of scientific evidence and expert witness testimony are reviewed and the underlying assumptions and potential weaknesses of adversarial trial procedure are critically considered. The discussion is pitched at the generic level of recurring intellectual puzzles, institutional design, regulatory frameworks, procedural structures and processes, macro-policy choices and methodological prescriptions, with the intention of making it relevant to an international audience. Aspects of the procedural law and adjudicative practice of England and Wales, and the regulatory context of UK forensic science, are offered as concrete illustrations with the potential for illuminating comparative extrapolation to other legal systems. In conclusion, the article draws out specific implications for Chinese scholarship, law reform and policymaking in relation to scientific and other expert evidence, and advances a bold suggestion for entertaining an unconventionally expansive conception of ＂forensic science＂ and, correspondingly, of the challenges it presents.展开更多
基金supported by the Major Program of the National Social Science Foundation,"Research on Improving the System of Rule-of-Law Guarantee for Social Fairness and Justice"(No.20AZD028).
文摘Legal research methods refer to a general term for disciplined and systematic procedures, approaches, means, techniques, and models used by researchers to acquire novel and reliable legal knowledge. Several theoretical debates on the originality of legal research methods go on as follows: Is one legal research method superior to another? Do legal research methods aim for methodological independence? Are legal research methods objective or subjective? Influenced by scientism, positivism is usually considered to be the only reasonable research method, but since law is different from science, only using positivist research approaches is insufficient for solving legal problems. Strictly speaking, a method that is appropriate for the research subject is a reasonable method. As one of the humanities and social sciences, law has similarities with other disciplines in terms of the scope of research;therefore, its research methods could be borrowed from other disciplines. However, law cannot ignore the development of its own unique research methods while retaining its advantages. Legal research methods are supposed to be objective because they should follow scientific standards and have objective arguments, but inevitably, legal research would be subjective and full of value judgments since it means subjective and creative activities of researchers. Of course, the choice of values should preferably be made in the context of value-freeness to ensure the organic combination of value-freeness and value judgment.
基金financed by "The 211 Project Program""The 985 Project Program" of Jilin Universityby the Center of Cooperative Innovation for Judicial Civilization
文摘Legal practice comprises the normative activities of constructing and maintaining social order with the aim of achieving equity and justice. In terms of content, it can be divided into three categories： intellectual legal practice, normative legal practice, and applied legal practice. As an important factor supporting legal practice, legal theory has a complex interactive relationship with legal practice. The effect of legal theory on legal practice is realized through the intermediary, carrier and bridging functions of the rationality, wisdom and ideas of legal practice. Developing the concept of the ideal legal life is the inherent mission and method of legal practice thought.
文摘This article investigates what might be characterised as ＂the forensic challenge＂ for criminal adjudication and clarifies its nature and scope. The ＂challenge＂ identified is complex, dynamic and multifaceted, encompassing a variety of issues and debates concerning the ways in which forensic science evidence is validated, generated, presented, tested, evaluated and utilised in criminal proceedings. Common law evidentiary principles governing the admissibility of scientific evidence and expert witness testimony are reviewed and the underlying assumptions and potential weaknesses of adversarial trial procedure are critically considered. The discussion is pitched at the generic level of recurring intellectual puzzles, institutional design, regulatory frameworks, procedural structures and processes, macro-policy choices and methodological prescriptions, with the intention of making it relevant to an international audience. Aspects of the procedural law and adjudicative practice of England and Wales, and the regulatory context of UK forensic science, are offered as concrete illustrations with the potential for illuminating comparative extrapolation to other legal systems. In conclusion, the article draws out specific implications for Chinese scholarship, law reform and policymaking in relation to scientific and other expert evidence, and advances a bold suggestion for entertaining an unconventionally expansive conception of ＂forensic science＂ and, correspondingly, of the challenges it presents.
