Corroborating evidence: Difference between revisions
wrote with law changed to with lawful command |
|||
| (32 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Type of evidence in law}} |
|||
{{multiple issues| |
|||
{{redirect|Corroboration|the 2001 compilation album|Corroboration (album)}} |
|||
{{globalize|date=October 2011}} |
{{multiple issues|{{globalize|date=October 2011}} |
||
{{Refimprove|date=February 2009}} |
{{Refimprove|date=February 2009}} |
||
{{rewrite|date=February 2019}}}} |
|||
}} |
|||
'''Corroborating evidence''', also referred to as '''corroboration''', is a type of evidence in lawful command. |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
==Types and uses== |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | Corroborating evidence tends to support a proposition that is already supported by some initial evidence, therefore confirming the proposition. For example, W, a witness, testifies that she saw X drive his automobile into a green car. Meanwhile, Y, another witness, ''corroborates'' the proposition by testifying that when he examined X's car, later that day, he noticed green paint on its fender. There can also be corroborating evidence related to a certain source, such as what makes an author think a certain way due to the evidence that was supplied by witnesses or objects.<ref>For more information on this type of reasoning, see: [[Casuistry]].</ref> |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | These methods are followed in [[experimental design]]. They were codified by [[Francis Bacon (philosopher)|Francis Bacon]], and developed further by [[John Stuart Mill]] and consist of controlling several [[Dependent and independent variables|variables]], in turn, to establish which variables are [[causality|causally]] connected. These principles are widely used intuitively in various kinds of proofs, demonstrations and investigations, in addition to being fundamental to experimental design. |
||
| ⚫ | These methods are followed in [[experimental design]]. They were codified by [[Francis Bacon (philosopher)|Francis Bacon]], and developed further by [[John Stuart Mill]] and consist of controlling several [[Dependent and independent variables|variables]], in turn, to establish which variables are [[causality|causally]] connected. These principles are widely used intuitively in various kinds of proofs, demonstrations, and investigations, in addition to being fundamental to experimental design. |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
First person walks in turns and looks back the way they had come; this allows a person to say I had a clear view of another person that enters later. Second person walks in and on some pretext starts shouting, suddenly raising arms in the air and shaking them, who notices if fists are open or closed when the eye is on the action of the arm; this can look threatening and causes added stress in already tense circumstances. This can provoke an already bad situation into violence and can be used when people need to justify their actions or their presence. We made a mistake but look what happened someone was assaulted. Later it can be said I had a clear view of the other person and my friend raised their arms in supplication or in surrender and can demonstrate this with arms raised slowly, hands open and palms out. This involves two people, is premeditated, threatening, causes fear and alarm and is also used to make corroboration work against anyone. Common line afterward whether you were baited or goaded you still did it. This works well if both people have authority and in a position where they are commonly accepted to be of good character. There is other variations on this and is often used to provoke criminal action where there has been no other disorderly conduct. |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
Corroboration is not needed in certain instances. For example, there are certain statutory exceptions. In the [[Education (Scotland) Act]], it is only necessary to produce a register as proof of lack of attendance. No further evidence is needed. |
Corroboration is not needed in certain instances. For example, there are certain statutory exceptions. In the [[Education (Scotland) Act]], it is only necessary to produce a register as proof of lack of attendance. No further evidence is needed. |
||
| Line 41: | Line 43: | ||
'''Evidence of accomplices''' |
'''Evidence of accomplices''' |
||
See section 32 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. |
See section 32 of the [[Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994]]. |
||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
| Line 54: | Line 56: | ||
[[Category:Evidence law]] |
[[Category:Evidence law]] |
||
[[Category:Philosophy of science]] |
[[Category:Philosophy of science]] |
||
{{science-philo-stub}} |
|||
Latest revision as of 13:14, 21 March 2024
 | This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
|
Corroborating evidence, also referred to as corroboration, is a type of evidence in lawful command.
Types and uses
[edit]Corroborating evidence tends to support a proposition that is already supported by some initial evidence, therefore confirming the proposition. For example, W, a witness, testifies that she saw X drive his automobile into a green car. Meanwhile, Y, another witness, corroborates the proposition by testifying that when he examined X's car, later that day, he noticed green paint on its fender. There can also be corroborating evidence related to a certain source, such as what makes an author think a certain way due to the evidence that was supplied by witnesses or objects.[1]
Another type of corroborating evidence comes from using the Baconian method, i.e., the method of agreement, method of difference, and method of concomitant variations.
These methods are followed in experimental design. They were codified by Francis Bacon, and developed further by John Stuart Mill and consist of controlling several variables, in turn, to establish which variables are causally connected. These principles are widely used intuitively in various kinds of proofs, demonstrations, and investigations, in addition to being fundamental to experimental design.
In law, corroboration refers to the requirement in some jurisdictions, such as in Scots law, that any evidence adduced be backed up by at least one other source (see Corroboration in Scots law).
An example of corroboration
[edit]Defendant says, "It was like what he/she (a witness) said but...". This is Corroborative evidence from the defendant that the evidence the witness gave is true and correct.
Corroboration is not needed in certain instances. For example, there are certain statutory exceptions. In the Education (Scotland) Act, it is only necessary to produce a register as proof of lack of attendance. No further evidence is needed.
England and Wales
[edit]Perjury
See section 13 of the Perjury Act 1911.
Speeding offences
See section 89(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
Sexual offences
See section 32 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
Confessions by mentally handicapped persons
See section 77 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Evidence of children
See section 34 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Evidence of accomplices
See section 32 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
See also
[edit]Notes
[edit]References
[edit]- Plutchik, Robert (1983), Foundations of Experimental Research, Harper's Experimental Psychology Series.
 | This philosophy of science-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |