Embodied truths and authentic selves: The constitution of evidence and credibility in rape cases

Abstract

In this article, I use the concept of chronotope, which means time-space, to analyse knowledge production at the intersection of science, technology and law. I do a comparative study of written legal decisions regarding criminal injuries compensation in rape cases from two different legal institutions in Norway—namely, the Compensation Authority and the criminal courts. In these written decisions, the two institutions state the reasons and justifications for their decisions by invoking, relying on and dismissing various kinds of knowledge, such as forensic, medical and psychological knowledge. The aim of this comparison is to investigate how these reasons and justifications constitute evidence and credibility. I argue that the two institutions attach themselves to different kinds of expert knowledge because they are chronotopically different and consequently constitute evidence and credibility in different ways.