Examining Testimony from the Perspective of Law and Philosophy

Abstract

The present study examines testimony from the perspective of law and philosophy. One of the classifications of evidence, based on the judge's role, includes restrictive evidence and diagnostic evidence. Simply put, restrictive evidence refers to binding evidence, while diagnostic evidence refers to persuasive evidence. In this study, following Dr. Hassan Jafari Tabar, the terms "non-criticizable evidence" and "criticizable evidence" have been adopted. In this classification, evidence is diagnostic or persuasive when no pre-existing rules regarding the evidentiary power of reasons exist in the law, leaving the judge’s conscience as the ultimate arbiter. The concept of "criticizable evidence" is not a strictly legal term but has more philosophical and sociological undertones. The notions of criticizability or non-criticizability, and the binding nature of certain matters (referred to as "binding evidence") leading to unquestioning obedience, were first introduced by philosophers and sociologists in post-Renaissance Europe. Max Weber, a German sociologist, was the first to diverge from the economic and broad views of law espoused by Marx and Engels. Weber studied law through the lens of sociology—particularly legal sociology—and examined the influence of religion and politics on legal norms. He introduced the concept of "demystification" regarding binding legal concepts. Weber's primary focus in the sociology of law was to explain the stages and factors contributing to the rationalization of modern law, particularly in European civilization. He also analyzed the development of logical lawmaking processes, the relationship between various types of legal thought and social agents through whom the law takes shape in a given society, and the economic and political significance of legal ideas.