The law views with suspicion statistical evidence, even evidence that is probabilistically on a par with direct, individual evidence that the law is in no way suspicious of. But it has proved remarkably hard to either justify this suspicion, or to debunk it. In this paper, we connect the discussion of statistical evidence to broader epistemological discussions of similar phenomena. We highlight Sensitivity – the requirement that a belief be counterfactually sensitive to the truth in a specific way – as (...) a way of epistemically explaining the legal suspicion towards statistical evidence. Still, we do not think of this as a satisfactory vindication of the reluctance to rely on statistical evidence. Knowledge – and Sensitivity, and indeed epistemology in general – are of little, if any, legal value. Instead, we tell an incentive-based story vindicating the suspicion towards statistical evidence. We conclude by showing that the epistemological story and the incentive-based story are closely and interestingly related, and by offering initial thoughts about the role of statistical evidence in morality. (shrink)

Philosophical Issues, Volume 31, Issue 1, Page 85-103, October 2021.

Criminal law conceptualizes guilt and the finding of guilt as purely categorical phenomena. At the end of trial, the defendant is pronounced either “guilty” or “not guilty” of the charges made against her, excluding the possibility of judgment of degree. Judges or juries cannot calibrate findings of guilt to various degrees of epistemic certainty by pronouncing the defendant “probably guilty,” “most certainly guilty,” or “guilty by preponderance of the evidence.” Nor can decision makers qualify the verdict to reflect normative or (...) legal ambiguities. Findings of guilt are construed as asserting factual and legal truths. The penal results of conviction assume similar “all or nothing” properties: punishment can be calibrated, but not with the established probability of guilt. The prevailing decision-making model, with its ‘on-off’ formulation of guilt, is so broadly established that it is considered an axiom— but there is nothing natural or pre-political about it, nor about the derivative distribution of punishment. This Article attempts to expose the hidden potential rooted in the construal of criminal verdicts as judgments of degree, by drawing three hypothetical manifestations of a linear conceptualization of conviction and punishment in the criminal trial and plea-bargaining arena. It also offers a normative assessment of converting criminal verdicts from categorical decisions to continuities. (shrink)

The future of trial lies in customization. Throughout the Anglo-American world, the public model of criminal and civil procedure is gradually giving way to a private contractual paradigm, one which allows the litigating parties to tailor the evidentiary and procedural landscape of trial to fit their specific needs and preferences. Procedural and evidence rules are shifting from mandatory safeguards of public values to default rules and bargaining chips within the hands of the litigating parties. There is growing recognition in the (...) ability of litigating parties in civil trials and of defendants in criminal trials to waive evidentiary and procedural rights, such as the right of cross-examination, the right to trial by jury, or the right to appeal. Courts are exhibiting a willingness to enforce choice of procedure and choice of evidence agreements, such as agreements to restrict the presentation of otherwise admissible evidence or to allow for presentation of otherwise inadmissible evidence. (shrink)

Current framing of the debate over the privatization of the State’s legislative and adjudicative functions masks the fact that there are distinct and conflicting versions of privatization of law. The different privatization models diverge on fundamental questions relating to the ontology of law, the role of social cooperation mechanisms in the lives of people, as well as the types of private legislative and adjudicative institutions that ought to replace the State’s legal system. In light of such conflicting normative premises, the (...) distinct models of the privatization of law pose different kinds of challenges to both proponents and opponents of the privatization of law. At the outset, the Article juxtaposes two distinct visions regarding the privatization of law and adjudication—the market-based privatization model versus the community-based model. This analytical framework is then used to offer a fresh look at the privatization of law debate. The Article shows that the distinctions between the privatization models, especially with respect to the depiction of the social agents that are to replace the state’s lawmaking capacity, have great bearing on the advantages and disadvantages associated with privatization of law, and generate different types of costs and benefits. More specifically, the Article shows that the market-based model has greater susceptibility to market failures and to the under-provision of the public goods associated with the enterprise of law than the community-based paradigm. In addition, the market-based model runs a higher risk of corrupting the prevailing understanding of law as a collective, meaning-creating enterprise. The community-based model, on the other hand, has a greater vulnerability for coercion and is also more prone to political failures and public choice problems. (shrink)

Force and Freedom, a new book by Professor Arthur Ripstein, offers a comprehensive and highly sophisticated articulation of Kant’s legal and political philosophy. While Kant’s thinking on metaphysics and ethics has received paramount attention in the academic discourse, his contribution to legal and political theory has been somewhat marginalized. One reason for Kant’s exclusion from the central canon of political and legal philosophy is the abstract and very complicated nature of Kantian writing on law and political power, most particularly in (...) the Doctrine of Right. Another reason is the difficulties many writers have encountered in their attempts to reconcile Kant’s political and legal writing with his moral philosophy. Against this background, the novelty and importance of Force and Freedom cannot be overstated. (shrink)

The three central themes underlying this issue of Theoretical Inquiries in Law—the privatization of law model, the legal pluralism paradigm, and multiculturalism — are united in their shared opposition, be it descriptive or normative, to the monopolistic concentration of law production power in the hands of the state. The three models focus on dispersion of the social ordering function amongst non-state agents. They advocate the claim that the state has not succeeded at securing a monopoly over law and/or should not (...) secure a monopoly over law. On the policy front, as well, protagonists of the privatization of law model, scholars of the legal pluralism paradigm and writers in the multiculturalism tradition often unite in their plea for recognition of tribal courts or the expansion of the lawmaking capacity of local governments. However, despite their shared underlying assumption that the centralist state law model lacks normative appeal, these three bodies of research diverge significantly. The differences between them have been marginalized in the debate, because each of these models has essentially concentrated on conducting the dialogue with the state law model. Thus far, these models have been solely occupied with taking a particular stance against the centralization model of state law, and have failed to engage in any debate amongst themselves as representatives of alternative legal decentralization schemes. This Article attempts to partially fill the void, by pitting the multiculturalism model of legal decentralization against the privatization model. It will show that the differences in both models’ legal decentralization visions derive from conflicting ontological premises regarding law, community, social life, and the human subject. These theoretical distinctions, which will be drawn between the two decentralization models, have great bearing when considering the social units that ought to supplant the state in its lawmaking capacity. (shrink)

In his canonical articles Against Settlement and The Forms of Justice, Owen Fiss argues that the erosion of civil litigation harms the deliberative process and the elucidation of public values in society. By revealing the hidden public dimension underlying not only public law litigation, but also the adjudication of private law disputes, Fiss’s argument can be conceptualized as posing a challenge to the public/ private distinction. At the same time, Fiss’s critique reinforces the public/private divide by placing settlement and civil (...) litigation on either side of the borderline. In this Article, we set out to dispel the prevalent depiction of settlement as inherently private, and to challenge the binary logic of the private/public distinction as it is understood to apply to settlement. We show how settlements have the capacity to fulfill each and every one of the public functions attributed to the civil trial, including the elaboration of norms, the discovery of facts, the facilitation of democratic participation, and the creation of public narratives. The functional, process-oriented approach we offer depicts settlement as a device that does not stand in opposition to the promotion of rule of law values - but rather as an institution that enhances the articulation of public norms. Our discussion progresses against the background of three settlement arenas: settlement in the classic civil suit context, structural reform suits, and transnational Holocaust litigation. (shrink)

Confessions both hold a great promise and pose a grave danger. When the accused speaks against his interest and assumes responsibility for criminal actions this is viewed as a compelling sign of guilt. It is not, therefore, for naught that the confession has been crowned the "queen of evidence." Yet research conducted in the last few decades has shown that a substantial number of confessions are false, ranking the out of court confession high among the factors leading to the conviction (...) of innocent people. The acceptance of DNA testing, has further substantiated this finding, igniting a renewed interest in out-of-court confessions. It is hard to assess the magnitude of social harm caused by the widespread and persistent resort to obtaining confessions, but one thing is evident from the vast literature on the matter: this evidentiary mechanism is currently overused, much beyond the optimal level. The reasons for this over-use are varied, among them the fact that confessions are readily available for law enforcement officers, and that those in charge of trying the facts tend to overwhelmingly convict based on out-of-court confessions, while underestimating the associated dangers. As a result, confessions have come to play a paramount role in the criminal justice system. Many attempts have been made to deal with confession-based wrongful convictions. Examples include the Miranda rules or the requirements for varying degrees and types of corroborating evidence. To date, all the rules and proposals share a common characteristic: They all attempt to correct the evidentiary fallacies associated with out-of-court confessions by evidentiary means, whether admissibility oriented or weight oriented. In the article we argue that none of the proposed mechanisms is likely to solve the problem. The root of the problem lies in the fact that the entire criminal justice system is currently organized around confessions. Law enforcement officers focus on obtaining confessions and the prosecution uses it as its evidentiary centerpiece. Further restricting admissibility or requiring a higher degree of corroboration will not change this trend. Moreover, the confessional lure is too strong to resist. Like the Sirens' Song, the confession casts a spell on all those subjected to it and, no matter how strong a corroboration we require, we will eventually fall back on the confession. We propose an entirely different solution to the tendency to over-use confessions, one that utilizes penal means to change the incentive structure within the criminal justice system. We propose to incorporate into the sentencing guidelines a mandatory reduction of the criminal sanction whenever an out-of-court confession is introduced into evidence by the prosecution. In other words, our proposal is to elevate the cost of using out-of court confessions, as compared to other types of evidence. The article will demonstrate how placing such a "sentencing price tag" on the use of out-of-court confessions will correct the current bias in favor of using this evidence and induce law enforcement officials to seek extrinsic evidence, thus turning confessions into a residual evidentiary devise. The article will also show that the proposed regime will improve the court's ability to distinguish between true and false confessions. After discussing the proposed model's normative appeal, the article will proceed to deal with possible criticisms which can be leveled against it, whether retributive, utilitarian or expressive. (shrink)