Search results

1

Likelihood Ratio in Evidential Evaluation of Polygraph Examination

100%

Konieczny J., Wolańska-Nowak P.

Internal Security

|

2019

|

vol. 11(1)

95-112

EN

The starting point of the paper is the observation that the likelihood ratio (LR) is not used in the evaluation practice of — so important in the field of internal security — polygraph examinations. Meanwhile, LR is the only scientifically justifiable parameter that shows the evidential weight of particular evidence. The authors present theoretical attempts to use LR for evidential assessment of the polygraph examinations value and subject them to criticism. The main objective of the paper is to present the LR calculation procedure in the context of interpretation of a polygraph examination result treated as evaluative expertise. The following assumptions are made: the analysis includes only comparison question techniques; examination results enable to include a relevant subject only in one of the three categories: deception indicated, no deception indicated, inconclusive; there are various ways to assign LR; in the course of LR assignment, the arbitrary adoption of the values of some variables is admissible. Several examples of LR calculations are presented in different tactical configurations of polygraph examinations. The significance of including the inconclusive results in the examination technique characteristics is analysed. The possibility of applying the cumulative LR is indicated, however, leaving this question open. Consequences of the LR application in the interpretation of polygraph examinations are also presented as an argument in the criminal analysis. Conclusions show that treating polygraph examinations as evaluative expertise opens a new perspective on this method of forensic identification and deserves to be continued; however, the issue of the evidential use of polygraph examination results, in the light of the evaluation made with the use of the Bayesian approach, requires a number of further discussions among lawyers and scientists.

2

Artefakty śledcze: porównywanie scenariuszy przestępstwa

81%

Ibek A.

Opolskie Studia Administracyjno-Prawne

|

2017

|

vol. 15

|

issue 3

21-38

PL

The objective of the article is to present narrative elements of investigative analysis as criminal artefacts. The key concepts of this perspective, such as: criminal artefact, scenario, generalization, evidential reasoning, are characterized. The methods and criteria of constructing scenarios are also presented in accordance with the discussed model. Moreover, the method of inference to the best explanation (so-called IBE) and explanatory evidential theory (so-called EET) are recognized as the basic methods of a criminal case reconstructions analysis. The practical aspects of using these methods are also presented. It was noted that a criminal scenario prepared according to relevant criteria is a good basis to justify person’s decisions in the course of fact-finding. However, as the final decision about the choice of the best scenario belongs to the part of the authority conducting the proceedings, the criminal trial should not be transformed into the trial by mathematics.

3

PRZEDMIOT DOWODZENIA W PROCESIE KARNYM

72%

Konieczny J.

Roczniki Administracji i Prawa

|

2019

|

vol. 2

|

issue XIX

65-77

PL

W teorii dowodzenia sądowego w procesie karnym dostrzec można rozbieżność, dotyczącą przedmiotu dowodu. Wyróżnia się dwa główne stanowiska. Pierwsze głosi, że przedmiotem dowodu jest fakt, drugie natomiast, że jest nim twierdzenie, wyrażane zdaniem. Artykuł przedstawia możliwe rozwiązanie tej kontrowersji. Punktem wyjścia jest spostrzeżenie, iż nośnikami prawdy są twierdzenia/zdania, nie zaś fakty. Skoro zatem prawda jest jedną z podstawowych wartości w procesie karnym, to wynika z tego, że przedmiotem dowodu jest twierdzenie. Po drugie, w toku postępowania dowodowego prowadzone są rozumowania w postaci operacji myślowych – te zaś mogą być prowadzone tylko z użyciem zdań. Artykuł kończy się konkluzją, iż przedmiotem dowodu jest twierdzenie; udowodnienie faktu jest epistemologicznie niemożliwe. Rozwiązanie takie wydaje się korzystne dla teorii dowodzenia, gdyż może wpłynąć na poprawę jakości rozumowań dowodowych, w tym także na jakość uzasadnień wyroków.

EN

In the theory of evidential reasoning in a criminal trial, there is a discrepancy in the subject matter of proof. There are two main positions. The first one states that the object of proof is fact, while the second one is a statement expressed in a sentence. The article presents a possible solution to this controversy. The starting point is the observation that the bearers of truth are statements/sentences. Therefore, since truth is one of the basic values in criminal proceedings, it results that the object of proof is a claim. Secondly, in the course of evidential reasoning is carried out in the form of thought operations - these can only be carried out with the use of sentences. The article ends with an conclusion that the object of evidence is a proposition; proving the fact is epistemologically impossible. Such a solution seems to be beneficial for the theory of proof, as it may improve the quality of evidential reasoning, including the quality of justifications of verdicts.

Refine search results

1 Internal Security

1 Opolskie Studia Administracyjno-Prawne

1 Roczniki Administracji i Prawa

2 Konieczny J.

1 Ibek A.

1 Wolańska-Nowak P.

2 2019

1 2017

Likelihood Ratio in Evidential Evaluation of Polygraph Examination

Artefakty śledcze: porównywanie scenariuszy przestępstwa

PRZEDMIOT DOWODZENIA W PROCESIE KARNYM