Law, Probability and Risk 6:159-165 (2005)
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)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Free Will and Reasonable Doubt.Benjamin Vilhauer - 2009 - American Philosophical Quarterly 46 (2):131-140.
Reasonable Doubt and the Presumption of Innocence: The Case of the Bayesian Juror.Piers Rawling - 1999 - Topoi 18 (2):117-126.
The Rules of Trial, Political Morality and the Costs of Error: Or, Is Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Doing More Harm Than Good?Larry Laudan - 2011 - In Leslie Green & Brian Leiter (eds.), Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law. Oxford University Press.
Reasonable Care: Equality as Objectivity. [REVIEW]Avihay Dorfman - 2012 - Law and Philosophy 31 (4):369-407.
Rape and the Reasonable Man.Donald C. Hubin & Karen Haely - 1999 - Law and Philosophy 18 (2):113-139.
Scepticism and Reasonable Doubt.Richard H. Popkin - 1992 - International Studies in Philosophy 24 (1):93-94.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads44 ( #119,655 of 2,178,181 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #316,504 of 2,178,181 )
How can I increase my downloads?