Graduate studies at Western
Law, Probability and Risk 6:159-165 (2005)
|Abstract||Argues for a minimal level of quantification for the "proof beyond reasonable doubt" standard of criminal law: if a jury asks "Is 60% enough?", the answer should be "No."|
|Keywords||Prrof beyond reasonable doubt|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Benjamin Vilhauer (2009). Free Will and Reasonable Doubt. American Philosophical Quarterly 46 (2):131-140.
Richard H. Popkin (1992). Scepticism and Reasonable Doubt. International Studies in Philosophy 24 (1):93-94.
Robert Holyer (1989). Scepticism and Reasonable Doubt. Southwest Philosophy Review 5 (2):91-95.
Donald C. Hubin & Karen Haely (1999). Rape and the Reasonable Man. Law and Philosophy 18 (2):113 - 139.
C. D. & K. Haely (1999). Rape and the Reasonable Man. Law and Philosophy 18 (2):113-139.
Avihay Dorfman (2012). Reasonable Care: Equality as Objectivity. [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 31 (4):369-407.
Larry Laudan (2011). The Rules of Trial, Political Morality and the Costs of Error: Or, Is Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Doing More Harm Than Good? In Leslie Green & Brian Leiter (eds.), Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law. Oxford University Press.
Piers Rawling (1999). Reasonable Doubt and the Presumption of Innocence: The Case of the Bayesian Juror. Topoi 18 (2):117-126.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads28 ( #49,908 of 739,395 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?