Advanced

En studie av holistisk och atomistisk bevisvärdering - Med inriktning mot bevisteorierna berättelsemodellen och bayes teorem

Shaw, Kim Christofer (2017) JURM02 20171
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
I litteraturen vilken behandlar bevisvärdering går att finna två övergripande uppfattningar om bevisvärdering. Den ena är holistisk bevisvärdering, vilken utmärks av att bedömaren ser till helheten. Den andra är atomistisk bevisvärdering, vilken utmärkas av att bedömaren värderar varje bevis enskilt. Till båda dessa uppfattningar kan hänföras olika bevisteorier. Till holistisk bevisvärdering kan berättelsemodellen inordnas, och till atomistisk bevisvär- dering kan bayes teorem inordnas.
Berättelsemodellen är en bevisteori vilken stadgar att bedömaren skapar berättelser som förklarar bevisen. Om flera berättelser skapas, väljs den bästa efter ett antal bedömningspunkter. Bayes teorem är en bevisteori vilken hjälper bedömaren att bedöma... (More)
I litteraturen vilken behandlar bevisvärdering går att finna två övergripande uppfattningar om bevisvärdering. Den ena är holistisk bevisvärdering, vilken utmärks av att bedömaren ser till helheten. Den andra är atomistisk bevisvärdering, vilken utmärkas av att bedömaren värderar varje bevis enskilt. Till båda dessa uppfattningar kan hänföras olika bevisteorier. Till holistisk bevisvärdering kan berättelsemodellen inordnas, och till atomistisk bevisvär- dering kan bayes teorem inordnas.
Berättelsemodellen är en bevisteori vilken stadgar att bedömaren skapar berättelser som förklarar bevisen. Om flera berättelser skapas, väljs den bästa efter ett antal bedömningspunkter. Bayes teorem är en bevisteori vilken hjälper bedömaren att bedöma sannolikheten av en viss omständighet, exempelvis X är gärningspersonen. Detta görs genom att bedömaren avgör sannolikheten för omständigheten innan bevisfaktumen beaktats, och uppdaterar sedan denna sannolikhet med de aktuella bevisfaktumen. Om sannolikheten för omständigheten är tillräckligt hög, läggs omständigheten till grund för dom.
Framställningens övergripande syfte är att bidra till den bevisteoretiska forskningen. Detta genom att utreda dels skillnader och problem med holistisk och atomistisk bevisvärdering, dels problem med bevisteorierna berättelsemodellen och bayes teorem. För att uppnå syftet redogör och diskuterar framställningen holistisk och atomistisk bevisvärdering. I uppsatsen diskuteras också berättelsemodellen och bayes teorem.
Framställningen visar på ett antal skillnader mellan holistisk och atom- istisk bevisvärdering. Inom holistisk bevisvärdering ses till helheten. Detta gäller både händelseförloppet och bevisfaktumen. Händelseförloppet betraktas som en serie händelser med kausala samband och bevisfaktumen värderas med beaktande av varandra. Inom atomistisk bevisvärdering ses händelseförloppet inte som en helhet. Det är bara de delar som är relevanta för rättsföljden som är viktiga. Vad gäller bevisfaktumen granskas dessa enskilt, men med beaktande av andra, för bevisfaktumet i fråga, relevanta bevisfaktum. Det finns således skillnader mellan hur händelseförloppet och bevisfaktumen betraktas.
I framställningen konstateras tre problem med holistisk bevisvärdering. Det ena är att det inte tycks finnas någon forskning som stödjer att det är bättre att värdera bevis med beaktande av varandra. Det andra är att det tycks närmast finnas forskning som stödjer att det kan vara svårt att värdera bevis holistiskt. Det tredje är att det finns en uppfattning i litteraturen om att holistisk bevisvärdering förenklar bevisvärderings komplexitet.
Vad gäller atomistisk bevisvärdering har i litteraturen framförts att det är ett problem att denna byter ut en överordnad bedömning mot flera underordnande bedömningar. Jag motsätter mig delvis att det vore ett problem. Det lyfts också fram att det inte är rationellt att värdera bevis atomistiskt, vilket jag också delvis ifrågasätter.
Vad gäller konkreta bevisteorier har ett antal problem med den holist- iska bevisteorin berättelsemodellen uppmärksammats. Dessa är att berättelsemodellen skapar risker för bedömaren, bedömningspunkterna för val av bästa förklaring, de argument som förts fram till stöd för en normativ tillämpning av berättelsemodellen samt att det är otydligt om den tidigare forskningen är normativ eller deskriptiv. Att den tidigare forskningen är otydlig leder enligt min mening till att det kan bli svårt att utveckla den tidigare forskningen.
De problem som uppmärksammats med bayes teorem är framförallt att det finns åsikter om att bevis måste sättas in i ett sammanhang av berättelser, samt att det kan vara svårt att tillämpa bayes teorem då bedömaren måste fastställa sannolikhetsförhållanden. (Less)
Abstract
In the literature, which deals with the evaluation of evidence, two broad types of evaluating evidence can be identified. One of them is the holistic approach, which is characterized by the assessor engages in a global assessment of the evidence. The other is the atomistic approach, which is characterized be the assessor, evaluates each piece of evidence individually. For both of these two types, different theories of evidence evaluation can be categorized. In the case of the holistic approach, the story model can be arranged, and for atomistic approach, bayes theorem can be arranged.
The story model is a theory of evidence that states that the assessor creates stories that explain the evidence. If several stories are created, different... (More)
In the literature, which deals with the evaluation of evidence, two broad types of evaluating evidence can be identified. One of them is the holistic approach, which is characterized by the assessor engages in a global assessment of the evidence. The other is the atomistic approach, which is characterized be the assessor, evaluates each piece of evidence individually. For both of these two types, different theories of evidence evaluation can be categorized. In the case of the holistic approach, the story model can be arranged, and for atomistic approach, bayes theorem can be arranged.
The story model is a theory of evidence that states that the assessor creates stories that explain the evidence. If several stories are created, different criteria helps the assessor to chose the best story. Bayes theorem is a theory of evidence that helps the assessor to evaluate the probability of a particular event, for example, X is the perpetrator. This is done by assessing the probability of the event before the evidence has been taken into account, and then updates this probability with the relevant evidence. If the final probability is high enough, then the judgment will be based on that event.
The general purpose of this thesis is to contribute to the theoretical research of evidence. This is by examining differences and problems with holistic and atomistic assessment of evidence, and problems with the two theories of evidence, the story model and bayes theorem. In order to achieve the purpose, the thesis describes and discusses holistic and atomistic evaluation of evidence. The essay also discusses the story model and bayes theorem.
In holistic evidence evaluation, is global evaluation important. This applies to both the course of events and the evidence. The course of events is considered a series of events with causal relationships, and the evidence is evaluated together. In atomistic evidence evaluation, the course of events is not seen as a whole. Only those parts that are relevant to the legal consequence are important. As regards to this the evidence is examined individually, but with regard to others, for the evidence in question, relevant evidence.
The thesis identifies three problems with holistic evaluation of evi- dence. One is that there seems to be no research that supports the holistic evaluation of evidence. The second is that there seems to be research that supports that it can be challenging to evaluate evidence holistically. The last is that there is an opinion in the literature that holistic evaluation of evidence simplifies the complexity of evidence evaluation.
As far as atomistic evidence evaluation is concerned, the literature has suggested that there is a problem that this replaces an overall assessment with several subordinate assessments. I partially oppose this problem. It is also argued that it is not rational to value evidence atomistically, which I also partly oppose.
With regard to evidence theories, a number of problems have been highlighted. The story model creates three problems for the assessor. These are that the story model creates risks to the assessor, the criteria to determine the best explanation, and the arguments put forward in support of a normative application of the story model. The last problem is that is unclear whether the previous research is normative or descriptive.
The problems highlighted by Bayes theorem are, above all, that there are views that evidence must be included in a context of stories, and that it may be difficult to apply bayes theorem, because of the fact that the assessor needs to determine the probability conditions. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Shaw, Kim Christofer
supervisor
organization
alternative title
A study of holistic and atomistic evidence assessment - Focusing on the story model and bayes theorem
course
JURM02 20171
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
criminal law, jurisprudence
language
Swedish
id
8909151
date added to LUP
2017-06-08 12:00:25
date last changed
2017-06-08 12:00:25
@misc{8909151,
  abstract     = {In the literature, which deals with the evaluation of evidence, two broad types of evaluating evidence can be identified. One of them is the holistic approach, which is characterized by the assessor engages in a global assessment of the evidence. The other is the atomistic approach, which is characterized be the assessor, evaluates each piece of evidence individually. For both of these two types, different theories of evidence evaluation can be categorized. In the case of the holistic approach, the story model can be arranged, and for atomistic approach, bayes theorem can be arranged.
The story model is a theory of evidence that states that the assessor creates stories that explain the evidence. If several stories are created, different criteria helps the assessor to chose the best story. Bayes theorem is a theory of evidence that helps the assessor to evaluate the probability of a particular event, for example, X is the perpetrator. This is done by assessing the probability of the event before the evidence has been taken into account, and then updates this probability with the relevant evidence. If the final probability is high enough, then the judgment will be based on that event.
The general purpose of this thesis is to contribute to the theoretical research of evidence. This is by examining differences and problems with holistic and atomistic assessment of evidence, and problems with the two theories of evidence, the story model and bayes theorem. In order to achieve the purpose, the thesis describes and discusses holistic and atomistic evaluation of evidence. The essay also discusses the story model and bayes theorem.
In holistic evidence evaluation, is global evaluation important. This applies to both the course of events and the evidence. The course of events is considered a series of events with causal relationships, and the evidence is evaluated together. In atomistic evidence evaluation, the course of events is not seen as a whole. Only those parts that are relevant to the legal consequence are important. As regards to this the evidence is examined individually, but with regard to others, for the evidence in question, relevant evidence.
The thesis identifies three problems with holistic evaluation of evi- dence. One is that there seems to be no research that supports the holistic evaluation of evidence. The second is that there seems to be research that supports that it can be challenging to evaluate evidence holistically. The last is that there is an opinion in the literature that holistic evaluation of evidence simplifies the complexity of evidence evaluation.
As far as atomistic evidence evaluation is concerned, the literature has suggested that there is a problem that this replaces an overall assessment with several subordinate assessments. I partially oppose this problem. It is also argued that it is not rational to value evidence atomistically, which I also partly oppose.
With regard to evidence theories, a number of problems have been highlighted. The story model creates three problems for the assessor. These are that the story model creates risks to the assessor, the criteria to determine the best explanation, and the arguments put forward in support of a normative application of the story model. The last problem is that is unclear whether the previous research is normative or descriptive.
The problems highlighted by Bayes theorem are, above all, that there are views that evidence must be included in a context of stories, and that it may be difficult to apply bayes theorem, because of the fact that the assessor needs to determine the probability conditions.},
  author       = {Shaw, Kim Christofer},
  keyword      = {criminal law,jurisprudence},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {En studie av holistisk och atomistisk bevisvärdering - Med inriktning mot bevisteorierna berättelsemodellen och bayes teorem},
  year         = {2017},
}