In this work our aim was to outline a route that would enable us to explore the issues surrounding so-called causal argumentation in legal proceedings. Although this is not a new topic, we take a fresh approach, focussing on the concept of causal argumentation with a view to providing a general, unitary overview of the various ways in which causal arguments can be discussed, rather than concentrating on the definition of causal argumentation. Thus we set out to provide the answer to an initial key question: which concept of causal argumentation is used in Italian court proceedings? As we know, causal arguments are generally put forward to explain or establish the motives behind an event, and to seek to demonstrate that an event or series of events led to another event or outcome. According to the Italian Court of Cassation, however, this is not the type of route to follow. First and foremost, this is because in this context, causal arguments are 'good legal arguments' when the argumentation is not merely an explanation of the causes of an event or outcome, but instead the causal explanation is actualized as a causal account. Secondly, causal argumentation in a legal setting cannot take on any form of expression, but must be delivered in face-to-face debate. It follows, therefore, that within a court, during legal proceedings, causal argumentation can only be called such if, and only if, it takes on the appropriate form.
|Titolo:||Polveri d'amianto e responsabilità penale. Il caso Verbania: quali argomentazione per la casualità.|
CANTARINI, Sibilla (Corresponding)
|Data di pubblicazione:||2013|
|Appare nelle tipologie:||01.01 Articolo in Rivista|