| Summary: | This article examines the meaning of "truth" in philosophy and in the law and it identifies notable dissonance between the two discourses. Deep divisions run within philosophy on the meaning of the term, while an examination of the term in the context of the law also reveals tensions. There are long held views that the truth is subservient to justice; and that proof rather than the truth is the justice system's main concern. That position, however, is not unanimous. A paradox that flows from this discussion is that there are at least two, potentially conflicting, kinds of truth in a trial- substantive truth and formal legal truth. The ramifications are significant.
|
|---|