Digital Evidence Authentication in Criminal Justice System “An Anglo-Saxon and Latin Criminal Law Perspectives”
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21271/zjlp.23.sp.10Keywords:
digital evidence, criminal justice system, algorithmic criminology, democracy of justice.Abstract
Criminal justice system now faces significant procedural and substantive issues as a result of the development of the internet and the pervasive use of information systems. Since digital evidence is technological scientific proof that is impossible to dispose and replicable, it offers several benefits. Regarding the evidence's probative value, the criminal judge has considerable authority when assessing digital evidence. Three conditions must be satisfied for digital evidence to be admitted in court: the evidence's legitimacy, the judge's degree of certainty, and the evidence's discussion. The existing legal framework determines the judge's ability to accept digital evidence. The Latin system, also called the system of free evidence, and the Anglo-Saxon system, often called the system of restricted evidence, are the two primary legal systems. The importance of the study stems from the fact that many crimes of a digital nature cannot be detected or proven using the traditional criminal laws in the Iraqi criminal system, while the study of digital evidence has started to replace and play a role in criminal evidence globally in order to control crimes and prevent offenders from impunity. Therefore, by presenting the legal framework of the authenticity of digital evidence from a Latin and Anglo-Saxon perspectives, the research's backdrop stems from its correspondence with global criminal legislative advancements in the techno-legal area. The research's challenge is to use descriptive and analytical methods to explain the probative value of digital evidence in relation to criminal evidence.
References
Articles
Bierekoven, C., Bazin, P., & Kozlowski, T. (2014). Electronic Signatures in German, French French and Polish Law Perspective. Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 1(0). https://doi.org/10.14296/deeslr.v1i0.1719
Cheng, C. C. C., Shi, C., Gong, N. Z., & Guan, Y. (2021). LogExtractor: Extracting digital evidence from android log messages via string and taint analysis. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 37, 301193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsidi.2021.301193
Choi, H., & Lee, S. (2023). Forensic analysis of SQL server transaction log in unallocated area of file system. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 46, 301605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsidi.2023.301605
Choi, J. P., & Yang, S. (2021). Investigative journalism and media capture in the digital age. Information Economics and Policy, 57, 100942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoecopol.2021.100942
Dolliver, D. S., Collins, C., & Sams, B. (2017). Hybrid approaches to digital forensic investigations: A comparative analysis in an institutional context. Digital Investigation, 23, 124–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diin.2017.10.005
Domingues, P., Andrade, L. M., & Frade, M. (2021). Microsoft’s Your Phone environment from a digital forensic perspective. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 38, 301177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsidi.2021.301177
Forte, D. (2003). Principles of digital evidence collection. Network Security, 2003(12), 6–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1353-4858(03)00006-0
Forte, D. (2004). The importance of text searches in digital forensics. Network Security, 2004(4), 13–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1353-4858(04)00067-4
Franco, D. (2023). The Importance of Research in Forensic Sciences and Digital Forensics in Contemporary Society. International Journal of Forensic Sciences, 8(4), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.23880/ijfsc-16000336
Harvey, D. J. (2019). Digital Evidence Admissibility: Some Issues. SSRN Electronic Journal. Published. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3505611
Holt, T., & Dolliver, D. S. (2021). Exploring digital evidence recognition among front-line law enforcement officers at fatal crash scenes. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 37, 301167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsidi.2021.301167
Horsman, G. (2023). Digital evidence strategies for digital forensic science examinations. Science & Justice, 63(1), 116–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2022.11.004
Khan, S., Parkinson, S., & Murphy, C. (2023). Context-based irregular activity detection in event logs for forensic investigations: An itemset mining approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 233, 120991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.120991
Makulilo, A. B. (2016). The admissibility of electronic evidence in Tanzania: new rules and case law. Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13(0). https://doi.org/10.14296/deeslr.v13i0.230202
Morelato, M., Cadola, L., Bérubé, M., Ribaux, O., & Baechler, S. (2023). Forensic intelligence teaching and learning in higher education: An international approach. Forensic Science International, 344, 111575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2023.111575
Oparnica, G. (2016). Digital evidence and digital forensic education. Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13(0). https://doi.org/10.14296/deeslr.v13i0.2305
Pedapudi, S. M., & Vadlamani, N. (2023). Digital forensics approach for handling audio and video files. Measurement: Sensors, 29, 100860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measen.2023.100860
Prashant Bhadu. (2021). Admissibility And Perplexity Of Digital Evidence: An Overview. Legal Research Development, 5(IV), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.53724/lrd/v5n4.03
Scanlon, M., Breitinger, F., Hargreaves, C., Hilgert, J.-N., & Sheppard, J. (2023). ChatGPT for digital forensic investigation: The good, the bad, and the unknown. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 46, 301609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsidi.2023.301609
Sokol, P., Antoni, Ľ., Krídlo, O., Marková, E., Kováčová, K., & Krajči, S. (2023). Formal concept analysis approach to understand digital evidence relationships. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 159, 108940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2023.108940
Sokol, P., Rózenfeldová, L., Lučivjanská, K., & Harašta, J. (2020). IP Addresses in the Context of Digital Evidence in the Criminal and Civil Case Law of the Slovak Republic. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 32, 300918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsidi.2020.300918
Stoykova, R. (2023). The right to a fair trial as a conceptual framework for digital evidence rules in criminal investigations. Computer Law & Security Review, 49, 105801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105801
Tatulych, I. (2020). Electronic evidence as a means of evidence in civil proceedings. Law Review of Kyiv University of Law, 1, 215–219. https://doi.org/10.36695/2219-5521.1.2020.43
Webpages
Rule 1002. Requirement of the Original. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_1002
Rule 1003. Admissibility of Duplicates. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_1003
