The criminal evidence systems in France and Portugal reflect two contrasting approaches in the civil law tradition, namely conviction intime and conviction raisonné. However, the fundamental debate between the two triggers dynamics regarding how the evidentiary system balances judicial independence and transparency. This study aims to analyze the philosophical differences and implications between the two principles. This study uses a normative legal research method with a comparative approach. The data collection method is collected using library research, then analyzed qualitatively and presented descriptively. The results of the study indicate that there is no single approach that can fully meet the needs of flexibility, efficiency, and transparency in criminal evidence. Both conviction intime in France and conviction raisonnée in Portugal present unique advantages and disadvantages, but both can complement each other if applied in a balanced manner.

Probative value refers to the extent to which the evidence provided is able to prove the facts being disputed. Evidence may be relevant in the sense that it relates to the case at hand, but relevance alone does not guarantee that the evidence will be well received or considered to have a significant influence. This study uses a qualitative research method with a conceptual approach. The data collection method was collected using library research, then analyzed using qualitative methods and presented descriptively. The results of the study show that the process of proof in criminal law plays a central role in upholding substantive justice. Evidence not only functions as a mechanism to test the truth of claims or accusations brought in court, but also as a tool to protect the human rights of the accused by ensuring that everyone is considered innocent until proven otherwise. Failure to assess probative value can lead to serious injustice in the form of wrongful conviction or wrongful acquittal. To address this problem, it is necessary to increase technical literacy among legal practitioners, as well as the application of more careful procedures in testing the validity and reliability of evidence.

In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, despite the decline of classical biological theory, the idea that biological factors play a role in criminal behavior has again gained attention, especially with the emergence of new fields of study such as neurocriminology and behavioral genetics. This approach, often referred to as Neo-Lombrosianism, updates the old biological theory by integrating new findings from modern science. Unfortunately, while the findings of genetics and neurobiology offer a new landscape for searching for the causes of crime, they risk ignoring the important role of social factors such as poverty, opportunity, social processes, trauma, and structural injustice. This study used a data collection method collected using library research, then analyzed using qualitative methods and presented descriptively. The results of the study indicate that Neo-Lombrosianism has made a significant contribution to the understanding of the relationship between biological factors and criminal behavior, this approach must be balanced with a full awareness of the importance of social, economic, and environmental factors in influencing human behavior. However, there is a great risk that genetic findings can be used to support unfair policies, especially if biological factors are considered to be the main determinants of criminal behavior.