Warping the Judgement of Dissenting Opinion towards a general framework for comparing distortion in rules of evidence
Introduction This study arose from a search for a comparative overview of the different ways that evidence may be distorted. The purpose is to find a means of positioning the evidence used in current efforts by western countries to justify curtailing civil liberties and due process in response to terrorism. The three approaches to comparing evidence envisaged here are: kinds of evidence that may be distorted and the fallacies to which this may give rise examples from different historical and socio-political contexts as case studies, and notably by extending the coverage to include legal, scientific and other concerns with evidence The conclusion was initially foreseen in the form of a table of case studies from a variety of sectors and times with an indication of the incidence of particular forms of distortion in the face of dissent. Such a table would help to give a sense of the diversity of forms of evidence to which appeal is made. Following inability to locate such a comparative t
