Editing Corroborating evidence

{{Short description|Type of evidence in law}}
{{redirect|Corroboration|the 2001 compilation album|Corroboration (album)}}
{{multiple issues|{{globalize|date=October 2011}}
{{Refimprove|date=February 2009}}
{{rewrite|date=February 2019}}}}
'''Corroborating evidence''', also referred to as '''corroboration''', is a type of evidence in lawful command.

==Types and uses==
Corroborating evidence 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, ''corroborates'' the proposition by testifying 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.<ref>For more information on this type of reasoning, see: [[Casuistry]].</ref>

Another type of corroborating evidence comes from using the [[Baconian method]], i.e., the  [[method of agreement]], [[Mill's Methods#Method of difference|method of difference]], and [[method of concomitant variations]].

These methods are followed in [[experimental design]]. They were codified by [[Francis Bacon (philosopher)|Francis Bacon]], and developed further by [[John Stuart Mill]] and consist of controlling several [[Dependent and independent variables|variables]], in turn, to establish which variables are [[causality|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 [[Scots law]], 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]].

==See also==
* [[Karl Popper]]

==Notes==
{{reflist}}

==References==
* Plutchik, Robert (1983), ''Foundations of Experimental Research'', Harper's Experimental Psychology Series.

[[Category:Evidence law]]
[[Category:Philosophy of science]]


{{science-philo-stub}}