Viktor Bérces: Evidence in Criminal Proceedings
›
Chapter III. Basic concepts of evidence
›
3.1. Levels of interpretation of the concept of proof

3.1. Levels of interpretation of the concept of proof

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The concept of proof is used in both scientific and trivial-everyday terms. In this process we mean some logical activity aimed at proving some event, fact, data or circumstance. This process of verification, however, also presupposes that the fact to be proved is known and interpreted in some way. Proof is thus the demonstration of the truth of a proposition or statement by means of a correctly connected series (chain) of propositions or statements whose truth has already been established.1

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

According to epistemology, the three sources of certainty are experience, rational thought and the validity of historical perspectives:

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

  1. experience: the primary process of establishing direct contact with various objects of reality through the senses (our senses, however, are not able to convey reality as a whole, and the personal characteristics of the cognizer make perception less objective);
  2. rational thinking: the secondary process of organising experienced images on a logical basis and recording various findings; 2
  3. historical validation: the tertiary process of realising findings, placing them in context and drawing conclusions.
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Philosophy distinguishes between different levels of cognition:

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

  • everyday cognition seeks the ‘trivial’ causes of phenomena; at this level, certainty is a state of affairs that can be actually experienced by anyone and is expressed as a shared belief beyond doubt among members of a group;
  • the scientific approach requires a deeper, more abstract interpretation;
  • philosophical thought is concerned with universal concepts;
  • theology moves in the sphere of elusiveness, intangibility. 3
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Obviously, it is scientific knowledge that is relevant to our topic. However, the definition of the scientific concept of proof also depends on the general criteria of the discipline:4

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

  • in the natural sciences, the methodology of proof is always empirical (based on direct experience), and the central question is to examine the logical relationship between cause and effect;
  • in the social sciences, evidence is typically not an empirical but an indirect process, and the central issue is not causality in a general sense, but a category of inquiry that concerns a narrower subject; in the case of legal (procedural) evidence, this means that it is limited to resolving the questions raised by the interpretation of the rules already laid down in the (legal) rules, i.e. whether the abstract legal rule applicable to the legal situation in question is applicable; this type of evidence is therefore ‘limited’, since the legal rules always limit the possible and necessary lines of evidence.5
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Proof, according to Mihály Tóth’s classification6 , can be approached from several angles:

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

  1. epistemological: in this case it refers to some indirect, ex post, reconstructive activity;
  2. logical: thinking according to the rules of logic;
  3. procedural: the activity of the subjects of the evidence within a fixed legal framework, in the manner and for the purpose of deciding the issues defined by law; the conceptual criteria for “procedural evidence” depend largely on the characteristics of the legal system (such as the type of evidence system).

3.1.1. Definitions and theories of the concept of proof

3.1.2. Proof as a logical activity

3.1.3. The subject of evidence: the relevant facts

3.1.4. The evidentiary procedure as a specific form of knowledge of the law enforcement authorities

3.1.5. Taxonomic classification of evidence according to the procedural sections

1 Endre Bócz – János Lakatos: A kriminalisztika egyes aktuális elméleti kérdései. [Some current theoretical issues in criminology.] Budapest, RTF, 2008. 29.
2 In making these statements, the subject often abstracts reality, moving from the particular to the general, and thus also explores its deeper context. In doing so, he also arrives at a general conceptualisation by highlighting the common features of the individual objects of reality.
3 Az ítéleti bizonyosság elméleti és gyakorlati kérdései. [Theoretical and practical issues of certainty of judgement.] (2017) ibid. 11.
4 Theoretical approaches to proof are, of course, primarily related to the natural sciences.
5 Ágnes Dóra Alföldi: Gondolatok a büntetőeljárásbeli bizonyítás jelentőségéről és fogalmának elméleti megközelítéséről. [Reflections on the significance and theoretical approach to the concept of evidence in criminal proceedings.] http://jesz.ajk.elte.hu/alfoldi46.html
6 Ervin Belovics – Mihály Tóth: Büntető eljárásjog. [Criminal Procedure Law.] Budapest, HVG-ORAC, 2020. 158.
chevron_left
chevron_right
Tartalomjegyzék navigate_next
Keresés a kiadványban navigate_next
A kereséshez, kérjük, lépj be!
Könyvjelzőim navigate_next
A könyvjelzők használatához
be kell jelentkezned.
Jegyzeteim navigate_next
Jegyzetek létrehozásához
be kell jelentkezned.
    Kiemeléseim navigate_next
    Mutasd a szövegben:
    Szűrés:
    Kiemelések létrehozásához
    MeRSZ+ előfizetés szükséges.
      Útmutató elindítása
      delete
      Kivonat
      fullscreenclose
      printsave