Search

Summary

This chapter turns to the judicial bureaucrats’ review of the facts and evidence on the record. As all soon discover, it is impossible to reconstruct the historical or objective truth behind a case, but only to come up with a persuasive factual narrative that obscures as much as it reveals. What may appear a structured and logical task proves more akin to bricolage. As they parse through the record, bureaucrats are bound to select the facts they deem most salient, ascribe varying weight to the scraps of information they come across, and use whatever is at hand to stitch up an assessment able to withstand scrutiny. Things get even trickier – and more uncertain – where technical or scientific evidence is involved. Some courts are better equipped to engage in extensive factual review than others. These differences notwithstanding, most international judges tend to have little patience for complex evidentiary issues, which they happily delegate to their legal assistants.

The present paper reviews some conclusions deriving from a series of works by a historian of medieval Western law and justice who has applied comparative analysis to the Chinese world. It points to the distance between the two civilizations, in terms of the concept of a “debt of justice” owed by the state, the autonomy of the judicial power, and judicial ethics. It opens a debate on the cultural elements that define the judicial truth-making process in various legal systems.

Search Results

Refine search

Refine search

Actions for selected content:

2 results

10 - Bricolage

Summary

The Judge and the Sacred: Notes for a Comparative History of Western and Chinese Judicial Cultures

Search Results

Refine search

Refine search

Actions for selected content:

Save Search

2 results

10 - Bricolage

Summary

The Judge and the Sacred: Notes for a Comparative History of Western and Chinese Judicial Cultures