TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF USING “LINGUISTIC FINGERPRINTS” IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Main Article Content

Balázs ELEK

Abstract

The author is a High Court judge of Criminal Division, and university lecturer. He wrote his PhD dissertation “Influencing testimonies in the criminal procedure” in 2008. His field of research includes the common area of forensics and applied linguistics, forensic linguistics. In his present research, he is discussing the questions of using linguistic evidence in forensics and criminal procedures, primarily from the perspective of identification and verification theory. It occurs more and more often that a forensic linguist is hired during the criminal procedure, who assists in drawing conclusions about the authors and the making of different texts by analyzing them. A forensic linguistics expert may also provide a lot of information on the linguistic data coming from what was heard during the confessions (effects of word usage, sentence structure, wording, stereotypes). This is important when searching for the truth in criminal cases because often the meaning of linguistic communication is not found in the particular words. Thus the judge is expected during making a decision to be familiar with the accomplishments of forensic linguistics, and of other related sciences, such as sociology, sociolinguistics, and psychology. The research method is the study of forensic files. The aim of his research is to lower the rate of false judicial decisions, and to increase the extent to which judges' decisions cover reality.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
ELEK, B. (2016). TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF USING “LINGUISTIC FINGERPRINTS” IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Comparative Legilinguistics, 28, 119-136. https://doi.org/10.14746/cl.2016.28.6.
Section
Articles

References

  1. Chiocchetti, Elena –Ralli, Natascia –Wissik, Tanja: The role of the domain expert in legal / administrative terminology work. In.: Language and Law in Social Practice Research edited by Girolamo Tessuto –Rita Salvi E-book, (ISBN: 978-88-99459-22-2) 249- 265. p.
  2. Elek, Balázs. 2014. A jog és a nyelvészet egyes összefüggései a büntetőeljárásban (Law and language certain questions in the criminal procedure). Miskolci Doktoranduszok Jogtudományi Tanulmányai. 15/1. 109-132. Miskolc: Bíbor Kiadó.
  3. Fliegauf, Gergely – Ránki, Sára. 2006. Fogva tartott gondolatok. L’Harmattan Kiadó. 133-181.
  4. Hart, Jonathan, D. 1996. Why Expert Testimony on the meaning of Language Has No Place in Libel Suits. 14 Communications Lawyer, Spring, 8-11. p.
  5. Ibolya, Tibor. 2015. Kriminalisztikatörténeti tanulmányok. Budapest:Patrocinium.7-30.
  6. Juhász, József – Szilák, Jolán. 1974. Gondolatok a kriminalisztikai szövegelemzésről. Belügyi Szemle. 64-65.
  7. Király, Tibor. 2000. Bizonyítás a készülő büntetőeljárási kódexben. (Verification in the code of criminal procedure in the making.) In: Büntetőeljárási jog. (Criminal procedural law.) (edited by Pusztai László) 90-102. p. Budapest: Osiris.
  8. Lawson, Gary, S. Linguistics legal epistemology: Why the law pays less attention to linguists than it should. Washington University Law Quarterly, Vol. 73: 995-999. p.
  9. Lempp, J.H. 2002. A helyes kérdezés módja. [The method of appropriate questioning.] p. 397-406. Psychotherapy
  10. Nagy, Ferenc. 1980. Kriminalisztikai szövegnyelvészet. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
  11. Nagy, L. 1966. Tanúbizonyítás a büntetőperben. [Witness verification in the criminal trial.] p.532 Budapest: Közgazdasági és Jogi Könyvkiadó [Publisher of Books on Economics and Law].
  12. Ophir, D. 2013. Computerized Legalinguistics and Psychology – Overriding the Polygraph’s Drawbacks. In Comparative Legilinguistics, Volume 15/2013, 33-52. p.
  13. Pápay, Kinga. 2007. Valószínűségi skálák az igazságügyi nyelvészetben. In:I. Alkalmazott Nyelvészeti Doktorandusz Konferencia (edited by Váradi Tamás) 102-113. Budapest: MTA, Nyelvtudományi Intézet, 2007.02.02, (ISBN 977-963-9074-44-6)
  14. Randall Trahan, John. 2016. Levasseur, Legal Linguist. In Lousiana Law Review, Vol. 76: 1025-1061.
  15. Ránki, Sára. 2013. Nyelvész az igazságszolgáltatásban. Ügyvédek Lapja Vol:1: 26-27.
  16. Rogers, J. 2000. Befolyásolási képesség. [Influencing abilities.] (translated by A. Borbás) p.48. Budapest: Scolar.
  17. Szilák, Jolán. 1981. Újságcikkek szerzőjének megállapítása kriminalisztikai nyelvészeti szövegelemzéssel. Belügyi Szemle,6:114-116.
  18. Szilák, Jolán. 1984. A valóság visszatükröződése a névtelenlevelekben. Belügyi Szemle,12: 117-122.
  19. Tiersma, Peter M. 1993. The judge as a linguist. In Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review. November, Vol.27: 269-283
  20. Trunkos, Ildikó. 2014. „Nyelvi uljlenyomatunkból” alkot profilt az ügyészségnek. Győr plusz hetilap, 26 september, 2014, 10-11. http://www.fesz.hu/editor_up/gyorplusz_14_szeptember 26.pdf