Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T21:23:21.998Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Justification, Coherence, and Epistemic Responsibility in Legal Fact-Finding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

Amalia Amaya
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper argues for a coherentist theory of the justification of evidentiary judgments in law, according to which a hypothesis about the events being litigated is justified if and only if it is such that an epistemically responsible fact-finder might have accepted it as justified by virtue of its coherence in like circumstances. It claims that this version of coherentism has the resources to address a main problem facing coherence theories of evidence and legal proof, namely, the problem of the coherence bias. The paper then develops an aretaic approach to the standards of epistemic responsibility which govern legal fact-finding. It concludes by exploring some implications of the proposed account of the justification of evidentiary judgments in law for the epistemology of legal proof.

Type
Research Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , October 2008 , pp. 306 - 319
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allen, Ronald. 1997. “Rationality, Algorithms, and Juridical Proof.” International Journal of Evidence and Proof 1: 254–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amaya, Amalia. 2009. Forthcoming. “Inference to the Best Legal Explanation.” In Kaptein, H., Prakken, H., & Verheij, B. (eds.), Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories, Logic. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
Audi, Robert. 2001. “Epistemic Virtue and Justi.ed Belief.” In Fairweather, A. & Zagzebski, L. (eds.), Virtue Epistemology: Essays on Epistemic Virtue and Responsibility, pp. 82–97. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BonJour, Laurence. 1985. The Structure of Empirical Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Code, Lorraine. 1987. Epistemic Responsibility. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.Google Scholar
Conte, Maria Elisabeth. 1989. “Coherence in Interpretation.” In Heydrich, W. et al. ( (eds.), Connexity and Coherence: Analysis of Text and Discourse, pp. 275–82. Berlin: DeGruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damaška, Mirjan. 1997. Evidence Law Adrift. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 1986. Law's Empire. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
Feldman, Richard. 2002. “Epistemological Duties.” In Moser, P. K. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology, pp. 362–84. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, Edward Morgan. 2000. Howards End. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Greco, John. 2001. “Virtues and Rules in Epistemology.” In Fairweather, A. & Zagzebski, L. (eds.), Virtue Epistemology: Essays on Epistemic Virtue and Responsibility, pp. 117–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greco, John. 2002. “Virtues in Epistemology.” In Moser, P. K. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology, pp. 287–315. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harman, Gilbert. 1986. Change in View: Principles of Reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hastie, Reid & Nancy, Pennington. 1991. “A Cognitive Theory of Juror Decision-Making: The Story Model.” Cardozo Law Review 13: 519–57.Google Scholar
Hookway, Christopher. 2003. “How to Be a Virtue Epistemologist.” In DePaul, M. & Zagzebski, L. (eds.), Intellectual Virtue: Perspectives from Ethics and Epistemology, pp. 183–202. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Bernard. 1988. Law, Fact, and Narrative Coherence. Merseyside: Deborah Charles Publications.Google Scholar
Jackson, John & Sean, Doran. 1995. Judge without Jury: Diplock Trials in the Adversary System. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, Keith. 2000. Theory of Knowledge. 2nd ed. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Lipton, Peter. 2004. Inference to the Best Explanation. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lycan, William. 1988. Judgment and Justification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lycan, William. 1996. “Plantinga and Coherentisms.” In Kvanvig, J. L. (ed.), Warrant and Contemporary Epistemology: Essays in Honor of Plantinga's Theory of Knowledge, pp. 3–23. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
MacCormick, Neil. 2005. Rhetoric and the Rule of Law: A Theory of Legal Reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montmarquet, James. 1993. Epistemic Virtue and Doxastic Responsibility. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Julius. 1990. Thought and Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Paul, Richard. 2000. “Critical Thinking, Moral Integrity and Citizenship: Teaching for the Intellectual Virtues.” In Axtell, G. (ed.), Knowledge, Belief, and Character: Readings in Virtue Epistemology, pp. 163–75. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin. 1993. Warrant: The Current Debate. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samet, Jerry & Roger, Schank. 1984. “Coherence and Connectivity.” Linguistics and Philosophy 7: 57–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, Dan. 1998. “A Psychological Model of Judicial Decision-Making.” Rutgers Law Journal 30: 1–142.Google Scholar
Simon, Dan. 2004. “A Third View of the Black Box: Cognitive Coherence in Legal Decision-Making.” The University of Chicago Law Review 71: 511–86.Google Scholar
Thagard, Paul. 2000. Coherence in Thought and Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zagzebski, Linda. 1996. Virtues of the Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziff, Paul. 1984. “Coherence.” Linguistics and Philosophy 7: 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar