Synthese:1-19 (forthcoming)

Abstract
The “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof, currently used in criminal trials, is notoriously vague and undermotivated. This paper discusses two popular strategies for justifying our choice of a particular precise interpretation of the standard: the “ratio-to-standard strategy” identifies a desired ratio of trial outcomes and then argues that a certain standard is the one that we can expect to produce our desired ratio, while the “utilities-to-standard strategy” identifies utilities for trial outcomes and then argues that a certain standard maximizes expected utility. I argue that both strategies fail on their own terms, by requiring us to perform calculations that we simply cannot perform. No version of either strategy can be performed by jurors or legislators in our actual epistemic position, in which, since we do not know which of the defendants in our trial system are genuinely innocent and which are genuinely guilty, we cannot determine the extent to which our trial system tends to produce evidence that misleadingly incriminates the innocent or misleadingly exonerates the guilty. But we would need to determine this in order to perform the calculations required by any possible version of the ratio-to-standard or utilities-to-standard strategies. I then suggest some empirical reasons to be pessimistic about the evidence produced by our actual trial system. The upshot is that the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard lacks a clear interpretation and rationale, nor do we have a promising way to identify an alternative. This is the trouble with standards of proof.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11229-020-02639-7
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 51,639
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

In Defence of Reasonable Doubt.Georgi Gardiner - 2017 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 34 (2):221-241.
Punishing the Guilty, Not Punishing the Innocent.Richard Lippke - 2010 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 7 (4):462-488.
The Trouble with Having Standards.Han Li - 2019 - Philosophical Studies 176 (5):1225-1245.
Justified Belief and Just Conviction.Clayton Littlejohn - forthcoming - In Jon Robson & Zachary Hoskins (eds.), Truth and Trial. Routledge.
The Criminal Justice System as a Problem in Binary Classification.William Cullerne Bown - 2018 - International Journal of Evidence and Proof 22 (4):363-391.
Assessment criteria or standards of proof? An effort in clarification.Giovanni Tuzet - 2020 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 28 (1):91-109.
An Analysis of the Notion of Rigour in Proofs.Michele Friend & Andrea Pedeferri - 2011 - Logic and Philosophy of Science 9 (1):165-171.
A Dynamic Reconstruction of the Presumption of Innocence.David Hamer - 2011 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 31 (2):417-435.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-04-23

Total views
5 ( #1,098,405 of 2,331,237 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #152,445 of 2,331,237 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes