Scientific standards as admissibility requirements for scientific evidence
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v4i1.120Keywords:
Criminal Procedure, Scientific Evidence, Scientific Standards, Forensic Sciences.Abstract
Applied sciences are increasingly used by the judicature as the primary means of access to knowledge of the facts under investigation or prosecution. This is evidenced by the fact that there is a growing number of evidence gathered through investigation methods that are based on forensic sciences. However, the legislation does not contain guidelines to identify which tests deserve the qualification of scientific and which do not. The main cause of this omission seems to be rooted in the inexistence of a legal concept of science, which is necessary to delimit the form and content of scientific evidence. Only in American jurisprudence can certain criteria be found to determine the scientificity of the evidence. These criteria are known as jurisprudential standards of scientificity and have a clear heterogeneous character, since they integrate elements from different notions of science. Through the analysis of such standards of scientificity it is possible to appreciate the role of law in shaping the concept of science. Thus, far from considering the law as a mere passive receptor, it may be understood as an instrument of creative interaction that uses and modifies scientific knowledge according to its own requirements.Downloads
References
ALCOCEBA GIL, Juan M. Ciencia y Proceso Penal: La prueba de ADN en el Proceso Penal Español. Tesis doctoral, Madrid, Universidad Carlos III, 2016.
APPAZOV, A. Expert Evidence and International Criminal Justice. Switzerland: Springer, 2016.
BACHMAIER WINTER, L. Dos modelos de prueba pericial penal en el derecho comparado: Estados Unidos de Norteamérica y Alemania. Jueces para la Democracia, n. 66, p. 118-137, 2009.
BAILEY C., Ake v. Oklahoma and an Indigent Defendant's 'Right' to an Expert Witness: A Promise Denied or Imagined?, William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal. v. 10, n. 2, p. 401-458, 2002.
BERGER, M. A. The Admissibility of Expert Testimony. Em: COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND LAW POLICY AND GLOBAL AFFAIRS. Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. Washington D.C: The National Academy, 2011, p. 11-36
COMMITTEE ON IDENTIFYING THE NEEDS OF THE FORENSIC SCIENCES COMMUNITY, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States. A path Forward. Washington, D.C: The National Academies Press, 2009. Disponible en: <http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html>. Acceso en: 11 ene. 2018.
DOLZ LAGO, M. J. La aportación de la policía científica al proceso penal. En: DOLZ LAGO, M. J. (dir.). FIGUEROA NAVARRO, C. (coord.). La prueba pericial científica. Madrid: Edisofer, 2012.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods. Washington, D.C: PCAST Working Group, 2016 [en linea] Disponible en <https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast>. Acceso en: 11 ene. 2018.
FERRUA, P. Epistemologia Scientifica ed epistemología giudiziaria: diferenze, analogie, interrelazioni. En: DE CATALLO NEUBURGER, L (org.). La prova scientifica nel processo penale. Padova: CEDAM, 2007.
GASCÓN ABELLÁN, Marina. Validez y valor de las pruebas científicas: la prueba del ADN. 2010, [en línea]. Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha [fecha de consulta: 19 de noviembre de 2017]. Disponible en: <http://www.uv.es/CEFD/15/gascon.pdf>. Acceso en: 11 ene. 2018.
GIMENO SENDRA, J. V., MORENO CATENA, V y CORTÉS DOMÍNGUEZ, V. Derecho Procesal Penal. Madrid: Colex, 1999.
GÓMEZ SÁNCHEZ, Yolanda. La protección de los datos genéticos: El derecho a la autodeterminación informativa. Derecho y Salud, vol. 16 (Extra 1), p. 59-78, 2008.
GOSLINGA REMÍREZ, Lorena. Derecho, ciencia, y tecnología en la Suprema Corte Canadiense: Estándares para la admisión de evidencia científica y técnica. 2008. Disponible en: <http://www.scjn.gob.mx/Transparencia/Lists/Becarios/Attachments/77/Becarios_077.pdf>. Acceso en: 11 ene. 2018.
GUTHEIL, T G., y BURSZTAJN, H J. Attorney Abuses of Daubert Hearings: Junk Science, Junk Law, or Just Plain Obstruction? Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, vol. 33, n. 2, 2005.
HART, Herbert Lionel A. El Concepto de Derecho, 2ª edición, Buenos Aires: Abeledo Perrot, 1968.
LÓPEZ CASTILLO, M.; DÍAZ CABIALEZ, J. A. La conversión de la prueba pericial en documental, artículo 788. 2. II LECr. Jueces para la Democracia, n.º 46, p. 70-71, 2003.
MUELLER, C. B.; KIRKPATRICK, L. C. Federal Rules of Evidence. Nueva York: Marcial Pons, 2005.
ITURRALDE SESMA, Victoria. Sobre el silogismo judicial. Anuario de filosofía del derecho VIII, n. 8, p. 239-272, 1991.
PONS, Teresa. Ciencia forense: de la teoría a la práctica. Principia, Temporada 3, Episodio 1, 2015.
SIMONS PINO, A. La prueba científica. Revista Eletrônica de Direito Processual - REDP, v. 18, n. 3, p. 04-44, 2017. https://doi.org/10.12957/redp.2017.31690
SOLETO MUÑOZ, H. Garantías y errores en la investigación: prueba científica versus memoria. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch, 2016.
SOLETO MUÑOZ, H. Testigos y prueba científica para la identificación del acusado: problemática, creencias y práctica". En: DIAZ-PICAO GIMÉNEZ, I. Derecho, justicia, universidad: liber amicorum de Andrés de la Oliva Santos. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Ramon Areces, 2016, p. 3033-3054.
TARUFFO, M. La prueba. Artículos y Conferencias, 1ª edición, Buenos Aires: Metropolitana, 2009.
TARUFFO, M. La prueba de los Hechos, 4ª edición. Madrid: Trotta, 2011.
TARUFFO, M. Poderes probatorios de las partes y del juez en Europa. Doxa, Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho, n. 29, p. 249-271, 2006. https://doi.org/10.14198/doxa2006.29.13
VAN KAMPEN, P. T. C. Expert Evidence Compared: Rules and Practices in the Dutch and American Legal System. Cambridge: Intersentia, 1998.
VAZQUEZ-ROJAS, C. Sobre la cientificidad de la prueba científica en el proceso judicial. Anuario de Psicología Jurídica, v. 24, n. 1, p. 65-73, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apj.2014.09.001
WRÓBLEWSKI, J. Sentido y hecho en el derecho. México: Fontamara, 2003.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
As of 2022, articles published in the RDPP are licensed under Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional. rticles published until 2021 adopted the Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial 4.0 Internacional.