This article explores the “fair trial” as a good practice for the construction of public proof. If proof signifies closure on matter(s) at hand, and publicness is taken to signify both “access to” and “participation in” the construction of proof by the publics concerned, the authors contend that the “fair trial” is a good example of building public proof and that its backbone constraints can be of great interest to the defenders and advocates of participative Technology Assessment (pTA), especially citizens' juries.
Bensaude-Vincent, B.2001. L'opinion publique et la science: A chacun son ignorance . Paris: Les empêcheurs de penser en rond.
2.
Callon, M., P. Lascoumes, and Y. Barthe.2001. Agir dans un monde incertain: Essai sur la démocratie technique. Paris: Seuil.
3.
Collins, H.M., and R. Evans.2002. The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science32 (2): 235-96
4.
Christoforou, T.2003. The precautionary principle and democratizing expertise: A European legal perspective. Science and Public Policy30 (3): 205-11.
5.
De Hert, P.2004a. Leve de republiek, leve de jury: Historische, bewijstechnische, democratische en politieke argumenten. In Recht en democratie: De democratische verbeelding in het recht, ed. Adams M. and P. Popelier , 459-91. Antwerpen : Intersentia.
6.
---. 2004b. De discussie over de jury in België. De orde van de dag (nr. 25): 9-19.
7.
---. 2006a. Hervorming van het Assisenhof: België blijft Slow . Panopticon: 1-11.
8.
---. 2006b. Jury en leken in Nederland: een identiteitsonderzoek . Nederlands Juristenblad81 (39): 2232-62.
9.
De Sutter, L.2006. Cosmopolitique de la représentation: Etude sur la construction juridique du public. PhD diss., Faculty of Law and Criminology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels.
10.
Dewey, J.1927/1970. The public and its problems. Chicago: The Swallow Press.
11.
Edmond G., and D. Mercer.1997. Scientific literacy and the jury: Reconsidering jury "competence." Public Understanding of Science6:329-57.
12.
Foqué, R., and A. C. `t Hart .1990. Instrumentaliteit en rechtsbescherming: Grondslagen van een strafrechtelijke waardendiscussie. Arnhem/Antwerpen: Gouda Quint /Kluwer Rechtswetenschappen.
13.
Foucault, M.1974. La vérité et les formes juridiques. In Michel Foucault, Dits et Écrits II 1970-1975, 538-648. Paris: Gallimard.
14.
Gallie, W.B.1956. Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society56 (167): 167-98.
15.
Garapon, A., and I. Papadopoulos .2003. Juger en Amérique et en France: Culture juridique et common law. Paris: Odile Jacob.
16.
Glasner, P.2001. Rights or rituals? Why juries can do more harm than good . PLA Notes40:43-6.
17.
Glenn, H.P.2004. Legal traditions of the world: Sustainable diversity in law. 2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18.
Grin, J., H. van der Graaf, and R. Hoppe.1997. Technology Assessment through interaction: A guide. Den Haag: Rathenau Institute .
19.
Gutwirth, S.1993. Waarheidsaanspraken in recht en wetenschap: Een onderzoek naar de verhouding tussen recht en wetenschap met bijzondere illustraties uit het informaticarecht. Brussels/ Antwerp: VUBPress/Maklu.
20.
Gutwirth, S., and P. De Hert.2004. Vergelding: een kernbegrip van het strafrecht?. KriTies. Liber amicorum et amicarum voorprof. mr. E. Prakken , ed. A. Klip, A. L. Smeulers , and M. W. Wolleswinkel , 295-312. Deventer : Kluwer.
21.
Hildebrandt, M.2002. Straf(begrip) en procesbeginsel: Een onderzoek naar de betekenis van straf en strafproces en de waarde van het procesbeginsel naar aanleiding van de consensuele afdoening van strafzaken. Deventer: Kluwer.
22.
---. 2006a. Trial and "fair trial": From peers to subjects to citizens . In The trial on trial II: Judgement and calling to account , ed. A. Duff, S. Marshall, V. Tadros, and L. Farmer, 15-37. London/ Oxford: Hart.
23.
---. 2006b. The trial of the expert: Épreuve and Preuve. New Criminal Law Review10 (1): 78-101.
24.
Hörnle, T.2005. Unterschiede zwischen Strafverfahrensordnungen und ihre kulturellen Hintergründe. Zeitschrift für gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaften117 (4): 803-39.
25.
Immink, P.W.A.1973. La liberté et la peine: Étude sur la transformation de la liberté et sur le développement du droit pénal public en Occident avant le XIIe siècle. Assen: Van Gorcum .
26.
Irwin, A.2001. Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science101: 1-18.
27.
Jasanoff, S.1995. Science at the Bar: Law science and technology in America . Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
28.
---. 2003. "(No?) Accounting for expertise," Science and Public Policy 30 (3) Special issue on "Democratizing expertise" and "expertising democracy" : 157-62.
29.
Jolivet, A.2006. Juré et cour d'assises: Découverte d'un monde social et expérience de sociabilité au sein d'un groupe restreint. Droit et Société62:203-22.
30.
Joly, P.-B., G. Assouline, D. Kreziak, J. Lemarié, C. Marris, and A. Roy.2000. L'innovation controversée: Le débat public sur les OGM en France, Rapport de recherche DGAL, INRA-CRIDE. Available at http://www.inra.fr/Internet/Directions/SED/science-gouvernance/pub/DGAL.pdf (accessed May 23, 2007).
31.
Joss, S., and S. Bellucci , eds., 2002. Participatory Technology Assessment: European perspectives. London: Centre for the Study of Democracy.
32.
Latour, B.1998. Ein Ding ist ein Thing: A philosophical platform for a LeftEuropean Party. Concepts and Transformation3 (1/2): 97-113.
33.
---. 1999. Politiques de la nature: Comment faire entrer les sciences en démocratie. Paris: La Découverte .
34.
---. 2004a. Why has critique run out of steam: From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry30:225-48.
35.
---. 2004b. La fabrique du droit: Une ethnographie du Conseil d'État . Paris: La Découverte.
36.
---. 2005. From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik. An introduction to making things public. In Making things public: Atmospheres of democracy , ed. B. Latour and P. Weibel, 14-41. Karlsruhe and Cambridge, MA: ZKM-Zentrum für Kunst und Medientechnologie / The MIT Press.
37.
Lévy, T.2000. Justice sans Dieu. Paris: Odile Jacob.
38.
Lévy-Bruhl, H.1964. La preuve judiciaire: Etude de sociologie juridique . Paris: Marcel Rivière.
39.
Lynch, M., and R. McNally.1999. Science, common sense and common law: Courtroom inquiries and the public understanding of science. Social Epistemology13 (2): 183-96.
40.
Marres N.2005. No Issue, n Public. Democratic Deficits after the Displacement of Politics. Diss. Amsterdam. Available at http://dare.uva.nl (accessed May 23, 2007 ).
41.
Marres, N., and G. de Vries.2002. Tussen toegang en kwaliteit: Legitimatie en contestatie van expertise op het internet. In De publieke dimensie van kennis, ed. H. Dijstelbloem and C. J. M.Den Haag: SDU. www.wrr.nl (accessed May 23, 2007).
42.
Marris, C., B. Wynne, P. Simmons, and S. Weldon.2002. Public perceptions on biotechnologies in Europe. Final Report of the PABE research project, funded by the Commission of the EC, Brussels.
43.
Nowotny, H.2003. Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge . Science and Public Policy30 (3):151-6.
44.
Pimbert, M., and M. Wakeford.2001. Overview-Deliberative democracy and citizen empowerment. PLA Notes40:23-40.
45.
Public Proofs.2004. Public proofs-Science, technology and democracy. Society for Social Studies of Sciences (4S) and the European Association for the Study of Science and Technology (EASST), Conference announcement. Paris, August. Available at: http://www.csi.ensmp.fr/WebCSI/4S/index.php (accessed May 23, 2007).
46.
Rigaux, F.1997. La loi des juges. Paris: Editions Odile Jacob.
47.
Rip, A.1994. Science & technology studies and constructive Technology Assessment. EASST Review13 (3). Available at http://www.easst.net/review/sept1994/rip (accessed May 27, 2007).
48.
---. 2003. Constructing expertise In a third wave of science studies?Social Studies of Science33 (3): 419-34.
49.
Salas, D.1992. Du procès penal: Eléments pour une théorie interdisciplinaire du procès. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
50.
Schot, J., and A. Rip.1997. The past and future of constructive Technology Assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change54:251-68.
51.
Shapiro, B.J.2000. A culture of fact: England, 1550-1720. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
52.
Stengers, I.2006. La vierge et le neutrino: Les scientfiques dans la tourmente . Paris: Les Empêcheurs de penser en rond.
53.
Stengers, I., and B. Bensaude-Vincent .2003. 100 mots pour commencer à penser les sciences. Paris: Les empêcheurs de tourner en rond/Le Seuil.
54.
TAMI, 2004. Technology Assessment in Europe: Between method and impact. Final report available at http://www.ta-swiss.ch/a/meth_tami/2004_TAMIfinalreport_e.pdf, (accessed May 23, 2007).
55.
van Hooff, A.2006. Ook gewone burgers kunnen rechtspreken. NRC. October 2, 2006.
56.
Vig N.J., and H. Paschen.2000. Parliaments and technology: The development of Technology Assessment in Europe. State University of New York Press.
57.
Wakeford, T.2002. Citizens juries: A radical alternative for social research . Social Research Update37. Available at http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU37.pdf (accessed May 23, 2007).
58.
White, R.C.A.1999. The English legal system in action: The administration of justice. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
59.
Wynne, B.1995. Public understanding of science. In Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 361-389). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
60.
---. 2001. Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMO. Science as Culture10:445-81.
