Embodied truths and authentic selves: The constitution of evidence and credibility in rape cases
| Author | Solveig Laugerud |
| Published date | 01 July 2020 |
| Date | 01 July 2020 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1365712720928668 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Embodied truths and authentic
selves: The constitution of evidence
and credibility in rape cases
Solveig Laugerud
University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
Abstract
In this article, I use the concept of chronotope, which means time-space, to analyse knowledge
production at the intersection of science, technology and law. I do a comparative study of
written legal decisions regarding criminal injuries compensation in rape cases from two dif-
ferent legal institutions in Norway—namely, the Compensation Authority and the criminal
courts. In these written decisions, the two institutions state the reasons and justifications for
their decisions by invoking, relying on and dismissing various kinds of knowledge, such as
forensic, medical and psychological knowledge. The aim of this comparison is to investigate
how these reasons and justifications constitute evidence and credibility. I argue that the two
institutions attach themselves to different kinds of expert knowledge because they are
chronotopically different and consequently constitute evidence and credibility in different
ways.
Keywords
Authenticity, credibility, forensic evidence, legal chronotopes, psychological trauma, truth
Introduction
In ‘The ground-zero theory of evidence’, Kim Lane Scheppele (1997) criticises American law of
evidence for embodying what she calls a ‘ground zero’ theory of evidence. ‘Ground zero’ is a military
metaphor of nuclear destruction, and it is the point at which the bomb hits, and levels of devastation are
measured from this point in time and space. She uses the ground zero metaphor to illustrate how the rules
of evidence privilege information (evidence) are collected in close proximity in time and space to the
crime. Information becomes less relevant as it radiates outward. This metaphor suggests that the law
primarily relies on forensic experts and institutions that can analyse evidence collected at the crime
scene in temporal proximity to the crime. Others have similarly criticised the legal system for placing too
much emphasis on forensic evidence, particularly DNA-evidence, when making legal decisions (Cole,
2007; Jasanoff, 2006).
Corresponding author:
Solveig Laugerud, University of Oslo, Problemveien 7, 0315 Oslo, Norway.
E-mail: solveig.laugerud@stk.uio.no
The International Journalof
Evidence & Proof
2020, Vol. 24(3) 307–320
ªThe Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1365712720928668
journals.sagepub.com/home/epj
To continue reading
Request your trial