Corroborating evidence

Corroborating evidence (or corroboration) is evidence that tends to support a proposition that is already supported by some initial evidence, therefore confirming the proposition. For example, W, a witness, testifies that she saw X drive his automobile into a green car. Meanwhile, Y, another witness, testifies that when he examined X's car, later that day, he noticed green paint on its fender. There can also be corroborating evidence related to a certain source, such as what makes an author think a certain way due to the evidence that was supplied by witnesses or objects.[1]

Another type of corroborating evidence comes from using the Baconian method, i.e. the method of agreement, method of difference, and method of concomitant variations.

These methods are followed in experimental design. They were codified by Francis Bacon, and developed further by John Stuart Mill and consist of controlling several variables, in turn, to establish which variables are causally connected. These principles are widely used intuitively in various kinds of proofs, demonstrations and investigations, in addition to being fundamental to experimental design.

In law, corroboration refers to the requirement in some jurisdictions, such as in Scotland, that any evidence adduced be backed up by at least one other source (see Corroboration in Scots law).

An example of corroboration

Defendant says "It was like what he/she (a witness) said but...". This is Corroborative evidence from the defendant that the evidence the witness gave is true and correct.

Corroboration is not needed in certain instances. For example, there are certain statutory exceptions. In the Education (Scotland) Act, it is only necessary to produce a register as proof of lack of attendance. No further evidence is needed.

England and Wales

Perjury

See section 13 of the Perjury Act 1911.

Speeding offences

See section 89(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

Sexual offences

See section 32 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Confessions by mentally handicapped persons

See section 77 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Evidence of children

See section 34 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Evidence of accomplices

See section 32 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

gollark: It doesn't seem very meaningful.
gollark: Okay, I kind of understand that sentence but not really? It seems to just be a convoluted way to say "lots of possible things could happen, but in one... universe or something... only a smaller amount of them can, so the weird thing you just encountered is a thing which might have happened but didn't and should be ignored".
gollark: Ah, the least infinite infinity.
gollark: ℵ-null is one of the very infinite infinities, right?
gollark: CEASE your typical mind fallacies.

See also

Notes
  1. For more information on this type of reasoning, see: Casuistry.

References
  • Plutchik, Robert (1983), Foundations of Experimental Research, Harper's Experimental Psychology Series.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.