SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: MYTHS AND PARADIGMS

Abstract

The basic purpose of this work consists of eliminating some of the myths and paradigms that  currently  inform the assessment  of scientif ic evidence.  In order  to accomplish this objective, the author starts from the premise that these myths and paradigms, produced with the development of forensic science, are minimizing the role of judges in judicial proceedings for the benef it of experts. This can lead to a violation of due process and neglecting  that judicial processes are aimed at resolving conflicts. The author refers specifically to the myth of infallibility  and the paradigm of identification,  according  to which scientif ic evidence can positively  identify an individual or object  through  physical  traces.  By analyzing  the recent doctrine on the assessment of scientif ic evidence, the author concludes on the need to  adopt the paradigm of likelihood. Thus, the judge still holds the role in the evaluation of evidence, and guarantees  that the goals of the process will be respected.