English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

In the legal process, there are fewer ubiquitous cognitive problems than is often thought. Optimal fact‐finding arrangements depend on a variety of factors, so that those intent on improving these arrangements face different problems in different procedural settings. In examining factors with a bearing on best fact‐finding practices, the author focuses first on factors that are internal to legal culture, such as the varying profile of decision‐makers, the type of proceedings, and the objectives of justice. He then explores the influence of extra‐legal factors, such as the role of political ideology, governmental structure, and the general cultural context on adjudicative fact‐finding. Special attention is given to the question of whether radically different cultural environments render their proof‐technologies discontinuous, or incommensurable. The paper ends on a cautionary note, suggesting that the absence of a suitable taxonomy of facts subject to proof makes it very difficult to apply the insights of cognitive science to factual inquiries in adjudication.

Epistemology and legal regulation of proof