Hypoteesit ja vaihtoehtoiset selitykset rikosasian näytön arvioinnissa

Abstrakti

Hypotheses and alternative explanations in the evaluation of evidence in criminal cases

The article examines two evidence theories, the hypothesis method by Christian Diesen and the explanation model by Eivind Kolflaath, and evaluates their suitability to judicial decision-making practice from the legal, practical, and psychological perspectives. The article assesses the extent to which the theories offer tools that contribute to the quality of the court’s evaluation of evidence and the reduction of potential errors in it.

Both the hypothesis method and the explanation model rest on the process of falsification, i.e., the assessment, comparison, and exclusion of alternative hypotheses. The authors argue that both theories fulfil the minimum requirements for normative evidence theory: Their methods are natural to judges and compatible with Finnish criminal procedure, they enable the evaluation of evidence both individually and holistically, and they enable the use of epistemic criteria in the evaluation.

While the hypothesis method offers a structured reasoning process compatible with the Finnish criminal procedure, it fails to provide guidance on how to evaluate single pieces of evidence. The explanation model, instead, does not provide such a structured reasoning process, but its descriptive background makes it easy for decision-makers to employ. Moreover, the explanation model also offers principles for evaluating single pieces of evidence. Many of these principles are not applicable to all cases, and thus cannot act as normative rules. The model should thus guide decision-makers in making appropriate reservations and, when necessary, complement or replace the evaluation principles with scientific knowledge. Regardless of these shortcomings, the authors argue that the explanation model offers the most reliable and comprehensive evidence theory for decision-making in Finnish criminal procedure.