This thesis is divided into three parts. Part I provides a critique of the dominant approach to the analysis and examination of evidence in Anglo-American writings. The critique consists in showing that the dominant approach, on account of its atomism, does not capture the complexity of judicial fact-finding tasks or codify intuitive judgments about them. Recent attempts offering either mathematical or inductivist structures for the analysis of judicial evidence are explained and criticized as a resurgence of interest in atomistic analysis. Part III identifies a non-atomistic body of thought outside the mainstream of the dominant tradition. This body of thought is used as the starting-point for developing a holistic approach to the examination and analysis of evidence in Anglo-American judicial processes.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:bl.uk/oai:ethos.bl.uk:353062 |
| Date | January 1984 |
| Creators | Abu-Hareira, M. Y. |
| Publisher | University of Warwick |
| Source Sets | Ethos UK |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Electronic Thesis or Dissertation |
| Source | http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/58593/ |
Page generated in 0.0015 seconds