Relevansi Bukti vs Probative Value: Sebuah Dilema dalam Hukum Pembuktian
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62383/aliansi.v1i6.556Keywords:
Law of Evidence, Probative Value, Relevance of EvidenceAbstract
Probative value refers to the extent to which the evidence provided is able to prove the facts being disputed. Evidence may be relevant in the sense that it relates to the case at hand, but relevance alone does not guarantee that the evidence will be well received or considered to have a significant influence. This study uses a qualitative research method with a conceptual approach. The data collection method was collected using library research, then analyzed using qualitative methods and presented descriptively. The results of the study show that the process of proof in criminal law plays a central role in upholding substantive justice. Evidence not only functions as a mechanism to test the truth of claims or accusations brought in court, but also as a tool to protect the human rights of the accused by ensuring that everyone is considered innocent until proven otherwise. Failure to assess probative value can lead to serious injustice in the form of wrongful conviction or wrongful acquittal. To address this problem, it is necessary to increase technical literacy among legal practitioners, as well as the application of more careful procedures in testing the validity and reliability of evidence.Downloads
References
Arce, R., & Fariña, F. (2005). Psychological evidence in court on statement credibility, psychological injury, and malingering: The Global Evaluation System (GES). Papeles Del Psicólogo, 26(1), 59–77.
Calouannides, M. A. (2003). Digital evidence and reasonable doubt. IEEE Security and Privacy Magazine, 1(6), 89–91.
Dmitrieva, A. A. (2023). Concept of electronic evidence in criminal legal procedure. Journal of Digital Technologies and Law, 1(1), 270–295.
Edmond, G., Cunliffe, E., Martire, K., & San Roque, M. (2019). Forensic science evidence and the limits of cross-examination. Melbourne University Law Review, 42(3), 1–62.
Freeman, L., & Vazquez Llorente, R. (2021). Finding the signal in the noise. International Criminal Justice, 19(1), 1–26.
Frempong, M. A., & Danquah, P. A. (2022). Reliability of digital evidence and legal matters: Ghana perspective. International Journal of Computer Applications, 184(8), 9–17.
Gould, J. B., & Leo, R. A. (2010). One hundred years later: Wrongful convictions after a century of research. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 100(3), 825–868.
Hamer, D. (2019). The significant probative value of tendency evidence. Melbourne University Law Review, 42(2), 506–550.
Heller, K. J. (2006). The cognitive psychology of circumstantial evidence. Michigan Law Review, 105(2), 241–306.
John, T. W., Mickes, L., & Fisher, R. P. (2018). Rethinking the reliability of eyewitness memory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(3), 324–335.
Kadir, Z. K., & Kadir, N. K. (2024). Examining the concept of standard of proof in the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code. International Journal of Global Community, 7(2), 149–160.
Kafadar, K. (2018). The critical role of statistics in demonstrating the reliability of expert evidence. Fordham Law Review, 86(4), 1617–1637.
Kucukay, A. (2022). Eyewitness psychology and examination techniques. Hacettepe Law Review, 12(2), 2111–2137.
Mappaselleng, N. F., & Kadir, Z. K. (2020). Hukum acara pidana adversarial. Arti Bumi Intaran.
Meterko, V. (2022). Cognitive biases in criminal case evaluation: A review of the research. International Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 37(1), 1011–1122.
Montece-Mosquera, F. W., & Izquierdo-Montecé, J. A. (2020). Preservación de la evidencia digital en el procedimiento de cadena de custodia. Iustitia Socialis, 5(3), 278–294.
Parashar, M. (2023). Brief analysis of circumstantial evidence. Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law, 13(3), 324–335.
Picinali, F. (2024). Evidential reasoning, testimonial injustice, and the fairness of the criminal trial. International Journal on Evidential Legal Reasoning, 6(1), 201–235.
Schofferman, J. (2007). Opinions and testimony of expert witnesses and independent medical evaluators. Pain Medicine, 8(4), 376–382.
Schum, D. A., & Marin, A. W. (1982). Formal and empirical research on cascaded inference in jurisprudence. Law & Society Review, 17(1), 105–151.
Tiersma, P., & Curtis, M. (2008). Testing the comprehensibility of jury instructions: California’s old and new instructions on circumstantial evidence. Journal of Court Innovation, 1(2), 231–261.
Yovel, J. (2006). Two conceptions of relevance. Cybernetics and Systems, 34(1), 283–315.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Aliansi: Jurnal Hukum, Pendidikan dan Sosial Humaniora
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
