Results for 'legal standards of proof'

941 found
Order:
  1. The Reasonable and the Relevant: Legal Standards of Proof.Georgi Gardiner - 2019 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 47 (3):288-318.
    According to a common conception of legal proof, satisfying a legal burden requires establishing a claim to a numerical threshold. Beyond reasonable doubt, for example, is often glossed as 90% or 95% likelihood given the evidence. Preponderance of evidence is interpreted as meaning at least 50% likelihood given the evidence. In light of problems with the common conception, I propose a new ‘relevant alternatives’ framework for legal standards of proof. Relevant alternative accounts of knowledge (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   39 citations  
  2. Legal Burdens of Proof and Statistical Evidence.Georgi Gardiner - 2018 - In David Coady & James Chase (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Applied Epistemology. New York: Routledge.
    In order to perform certain actions – such as incarcerating a person or revoking parental rights – the state must establish certain facts to a particular standard of proof. These standards – such as preponderance of evidence and beyond reasonable doubt – are often interpreted as likelihoods or epistemic confidences. Many theorists construe them numerically; beyond reasonable doubt, for example, is often construed as 90 to 95% confidence in the guilt of the defendant. -/- A family of influential (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   34 citations  
  3. Standards of Proof.Lewis Ross - 2024 - In The Philosophy of Legal Proof. Cambridge University Press.
    An introduction to philosophical research on the standards of legal proof.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4. More on Normic Support and the Criminal Standard of Proof.Martin Smith - 2021 - Mind 130 (519):943-960.
    In this paper I respond to Marcello Di Bello’s criticisms of the ‘normic account’ of the criminal standard of proof. In so doing, I further elaborate on what the normic account predicts about certain significant legal categories of evidence, including DNA and fingerprint evidence and eyewitness identifications.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  5.  92
    Burden of Proof in the Autonomous Weapons Debate.Maciek Zając - 2024 - Ethics and Armed Forces 2024 (1):34-42.
    The debate on the ethical permissibility of autonomous weapon systems (AWS) is deadlocked. It could therefore benefit from a differentiated assignment of the burden of proof. This is because the discussion is not purely philosophical in nature, but has a legal and security policy component and aims to avoid the most harmful outcomes of an otherwise unchecked development. Opponents of a universal AWS ban must clearly demonstrate that AWS comply with the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). This requires (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6. (1 other version)Criminal Proof: Fixed or Flexible?Lewis Ross - 2023 - Philosophical Quarterly (4):1-23.
    Should we use the same standard of proof to adjudicate guilt for murder and petty theft? Why not tailor the standard of proof to the crime? These relatively neglected questions cut to the heart of central issues in the philosophy of law. This paper scrutinises whether we ought to use the same standard for all criminal cases, in contrast with a flexible approach that uses different standards for different crimes. I reject consequentialist arguments for a radically flexible (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  7. The Philosophy of Legal Proof.Lewis Ross - 2024 - Cambridge University Press.
    Criminal courts make decisions that can remove the liberty and even life of those accused. Civil trials can cause the bankruptcy of companies employing thousands of people, asylum seekers being deported, or children being placed into state care. Selecting the right standards when deciding legal cases is of utmost importance in giving those affected a fair deal. This Element is an introduction to the philosophy of legal proof. It is organised around five questions. First, it introduces (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8. The “She Said, He Said” Paradox and the Proof Paradox.Georgi Gardiner - 2021 - In Jon Robson & Zachary Hoskins (eds.), The Social Epistemology of Legal Trials. Routledge.
    This essay introduces the ‘she said, he said’ paradox for Title IX investigations. ‘She said, he said’ cases are accusations of rape, followed by denials, with no further significant case-specific evidence available to the evaluator. In such cases, usually the accusation is true. Title IX investigations adjudicate sexual misconduct accusations in US educational institutions; I address whether they should be governed by the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard of proof or the higher ‘clear and convincing evidence’ standard. -/- Orthodoxy (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  9. Against legal probabilism.Martin Smith - 2021 - In Jon Robson & Zachary Hoskins (eds.), The Social Epistemology of Legal Trials. Routledge.
    Is it right to convict a person of a crime on the basis of purely statistical evidence? Many who have considered this question agree that it is not, posing a direct challenge to legal probabilism – the claim that the criminal standard of proof should be understood in terms of a high probability threshold. Some defenders of legal probabilism have, however, held their ground: Schoeman (1987) argues that there are no clear epistemic or moral problems with convictions (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  10. Just Probabilities.Chad Lee-Stronach - forthcoming - Noûs.
    I defend the thesis that legal standards of proof are reducible to thresholds of probability. Many have rejected this thesis because it seems to entail that defendants can be found liable solely on the basis of statistical evidence. I argue that this inference is invalid. I do so by developing a view, called Legal Causalism, that combines Thomson's (1986) causal analysis of evidence with recent work in formal theories of causal inference. On this view, legal (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  11. On Legal Interpretation and Second-order Proof Rules.Sebastián Reyes Molina - 2018 - Analisi E Diritto 1 (1):165-184.
    This paper puts forward three critiques of pardo’s second-order proof rules thesis. The first criticism states that these rules are not suitable to guide the interpretation of standards of proof rules because they confuse matters of legal interpretation with matters of epistemology. The second criticism states that second-order proof rules are affected by the same indeterminacy problems they are designed to resolve, thereby rendering them unsuitable for the task they are purposely designed for. The third (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  12. Sensitivity, Causality, and Statistical Evidence in Courts of Law.Michael Blome-Tillmann - 2015 - Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 4 (2):102-112.
    Recent attempts to resolve the Paradox of the Gatecrasher rest on a now familiar distinction between individual and bare statistical evidence. This paper investigates two such approaches, the causal approach to individual evidence and a recently influential (and award-winning) modal account that explicates individual evidence in terms of Nozick's notion of sensitivity. This paper offers counterexamples to both approaches, explicates a problem concerning necessary truths for the sensitivity account, and argues that either view is implausibly committed to the impossibility of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   45 citations  
  13. Reasonable Moral Doubt.Emad Atiq - 2022 - New York University Law Review 97:1373-1425.
    Sentencing outcomes turn on moral and evaluative determinations. For example, a finding of “irreparable corruption” is generally a precondition for juvenile life without parole. A finding that the “aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors” determines whether a defendant receives the death penalty. Should such moral determinations that expose defendants to extraordinary penalties be subject to a standard of proof? A broad range of federal and state courts have purported to decide this issue “in the abstract and without reference to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  14. Proof Paradoxes and Normic Support: Socializing or Relativizing?Marcello Di Bello - 2020 - Mind 129 (516):1269-1285.
    Smith argues that, unlike other forms of evidence, naked statistical evidence fails to satisfy normic support. This is his solution to the puzzles of statistical evidence in legal proof. This paper focuses on Smith’s claim that DNA evidence in cold-hit cases does not satisfy normic support. I argue that if this claim is correct, virtually no other form of evidence used at trial can satisfy normic support. This is troublesome. I discuss a few ways in which Smith can (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  15. Legal Epistemology.Georgi Gardiner - 2019 - Oxford Bibliographies Online.
    An annotated bibliography of legal epistemology.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  16. Legal Proof: Fixed or Flexible?Lewis Ross - 2024 - In The Philosophy of Legal Proof. Cambridge University Press.
    Discusses the idea that legal proof should use variable standards rather than a single fixed threshold.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  17. On Evidence, Medical and Legal.Donald W. Miller & Clifford Miller - 2005 - Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 10 (3):70-75.
    Medicine, like law, is a pragmatic, probabilistic activity. Both require that decisions be made on the basis of available evidence, within a limited time. In contrast to law, medicine, particularly evidence-based medicine as it is currently practiced, aspires to a scientific standard of proof, one that is more certain than the standards of proof courts apply in civil and criminal proceedings. But medicine, as Dr. William Osler put it, is an "art of probabilities," or at best, a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  18. Justified Belief and Just Conviction.Clayton Littlejohn - 2021 - In Jon Robson & Zachary Hoskins (eds.), The Social Epistemology of Legal Trials. Routledge.
    Abstract: When do we meet the standard of proof in a criminal trial? Some have argued that it is when the guilt of the defendant is sufficiently probable on the evidence. Some have argued that it is a matter of normic support. While the first view provides us with a nice account of how we ought to manage risk, the second explains why we shouldn’t convict on the basis of naked statistical evidence alone. Unfortunately, this second view doesn’t help (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  19. Truth, knowledge, and the standard of proof in criminal law.Clayton Littlejohn - 2020 - Synthese 197 (12):5253-5286.
    Could it be right to convict and punish defendants using only statistical evidence? In this paper, I argue that it is not and explain why it would be wrong. This is difficult to do because there is a powerful argument for thinking that we should convict and punish defendants using statistical evidence. It looks as if the relevant cases are cases of decision under risk and it seems we know what we should do in such cases (i.e., maximize expected value). (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   62 citations  
  20. Civil liability and the 50%+ standard of proof.Martin Smith - 2021 - International Journal of Evidence and Proof 25 (3):183-199.
    The standard of proof applied in civil trials is the preponderance of evidence, often said to be met when a proposition is shown to be more than 50% likely to be true. A number of theorists have argued that this 50%+ standard is too weak – there are circumstances in which a court should find that the defendant is not liable, even though the evidence presented makes it more than 50% likely that the plaintiff’s claim is true. In this (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  21. The Foundations of Criminal Law Epistemology.Lewis Ross - 2022 - Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy 9.
    Legal epistemology has been an area of great philosophical growth since the turn of the century. But recently, a number of philosophers have argued the entire project is misguided, claiming that it relies on an illicit transposition of the norms of individual epistemology to the legal arena. This paper uses these objections as a foil to consider the foundations of legal epistemology, particularly as it applies to the criminal law. The aim is to clarify the fundamental commitments (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  22. Statistical Evidence, Normalcy, and the Gatecrasher Paradox.Michael Blome-Tillmann - 2020 - Mind 129 (514):563-578.
    Martin Smith has recently proposed, in this journal, a novel and intriguing approach to puzzles and paradoxes in evidence law arising from the evidential standard of the Preponderance of the Evidence. According to Smith, the relation of normic support provides us with an elegant solution to those puzzles. In this paper I develop a counterexample to Smith’s approach and argue that normic support can neither account for our reluctance to base affirmative verdicts on bare statistical evidence nor resolve the pertinent (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  23. Domestic Drone Surveillance: The Court’s Epistemic Challenge and Wittgenstein’s Actional Certainty.Robert Greenleaf Brice & Katrina Sifferd - 2017 - Louisiana Law Review 77:805-831.
    This article examines the domestic use of drones by law enforcement to gather information. Although the use of drones for surveillance will undoubtedly provide law enforcement agencies with new means of gathering intelligence, these unmanned aircrafts bring with them a host of legal and epistemic complications. Part I considers the Fourth Amendment and the different legal standards of proof that might apply to law enforcement drone use. Part II explores philosopher Wittgenstein’s notion of actional certainty as (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  24. Against the Alleged Insufficiency of Statistical Evidence.Sam Fox Krauss - 2020 - Florida State University Law Review 47:801-825.
    Over almost a half-century, evidence law scholars and philosophers have contended with what have come to be called the “Proof Paradoxes.” In brief, the following sort of paradox arises: Factfinders in criminal and civil trials are charged with reaching a verdict if the evidence presented meets a particular standard of proof—beyond a reasonable doubt, in criminal cases, and preponderance of the evidence, in civil trials. It seems that purely statistical evidence can suffice for just such a level of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  25. When Does Evidence Suffice for Conviction?Martin Smith - 2018 - Mind 127 (508):1193-1218.
    There is something puzzling about statistical evidence. One place this manifests is in the law, where courts are reluctant to base affirmative verdicts on evidence that is purely statistical, in spite of the fact that it is perfectly capable of meeting the standards of proof enshrined in legal doctrine. After surveying some proposed explanations for this, I shall outline a new approach – one that makes use of a notion of normalcy that is distinct from the idea (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   69 citations  
  26. Tolerance, Mıgratıon And Hybrıd Identities: Normative Reasoning Of Intercultural Dialogue In A Blurring Structure.Armando Aliu, Ilyas Öztürk, Dorian Aliu & Ömer Özkan - 2016 - International Journal of Political Studies 2 (3):10-22.
    The aim of this study is to proof the argument – i.e. ‘there are significant linkages amongst tolerance, hybrid identities and migration.’ These linkages can be comprehended by means of conceptualising extensions of hybrid identities in aggregate trans/inter-migration processes. It can be put forward that arising hybrid identities are embedded in a blurring structure of thoughts, beliefs, states of affairs, facts, belongings and so forth. From multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism viewpoints, it is argued that tolerance and migration ought to be (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  27. Significance Tests, Belief Calculi, and Burden of Proof in Legal and Scientific Discourse.Julio Michael Stern - 2003 - Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications 101:139-147.
    We review the definition of the Full Bayesian Significance Test (FBST), and summarize its main statistical and epistemological characteristics. We review also the Abstract Belief Calculus (ABC) of Darwiche and Ginsberg, and use it to analyze the FBST’s value of evidence. This analysis helps us understand the FBST properties and interpretation. The definition of value of evidence against a sharp hypothesis, in the FBST setup, was motivated by applications of Bayesian statistical reasoning to legal matters where the sharp hypotheses (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  28. Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: A Balanced Retributive Account.Alec Walen - 2015 - Louisiana Law Review 76 (2):355-446.
    The standard of proof in criminal trials in many liberal democracies is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the BARD standard. It is customary to describe it, when putting a number on it, as requiring that the fact finder be at least 90% certain, after considering the evidence, that the defendant is guilty. Strikingly, no good reason has yet been offered in defense of using that standard. A number of non-consequentialist justifications that aim to support an even higher standard (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  29. Hechos, evidencia y estándares de prueba. Ensayos de epistemología jurídica.Andrés Páez (ed.) - 2015 - Bogotá, D.C., Colombia: Ediciones Uniandes.
    Aunque el derecho probatorio y el derecho procesal se han dedicado desde siempre al estudio de los problemas relacionados con las pruebas y el establecimiento de los hechos en los procesos judiciales, el énfasis ha estado siempre en el aspecto formal, doctrinal y procedimental en detrimento de los fundamentos filosóficos y teóricos. Durante los últimos años ha habido un intento sostenido de explorar estos fundamentos combinando no sólo las herramientas tradicionales proporcionadas por la lógica, la gramática y la retórica, sino (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  30. The objective Bayesian conceptualisation of proof and reference class problems.James Franklin - 2011 - Sydney Law Review 33 (3):545-561.
    The objective Bayesian view of proof (or logical probability, or evidential support) is explained and defended: that the relation of evidence to hypothesis (in legal trials, science etc) is a strictly logical one, comparable to deductive logic. This view is distinguished from the thesis, which had some popularity in law in the 1980s, that legal evidence ought to be evaluated using numerical probabilities and formulas. While numbers are not always useful, a central role is played in uncertain (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  31. The sensitivity of legal proof.Guido Melchior - 2024 - Synthese 203 (5):1-23.
    The proof paradox results from conflicting intuitions concerning different types of fallible evidence in a court of law. We accept fallible individual evidence but reject fallible statistical evidence even when the conditional probability that the defendant is guilty given the evidence is the same, a seeming inconsistency. This paper defends a solution to the proof paradox, building on a sensitivity account of checking and settling a question. The proposed sensitivity account of legal proof not only requires (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  32. Dialectical and heuristic arguments: presumptions and burden of proof.Fabrizio Macagno - 2010 - In C. Tindale & C. Reed (eds.), Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation: An Examination of Douglas Walton's Theories of Reasoning and Argument. College Publications. pp. 45-57.
    Presumption is a complex concept in law, affecting the dialogue setting. However, it is not clear how presumptions work in everyday argumentation, in which the concept of “plausible argumentation” seems to encompass all kinds of inferences. By analyzing the legal notion of presumption, it appears that this type of reasoning combines argument schemes with reasoning from ignorance. Presumptive reasoning can be considered a particular form of reasoning, which needs positive or negative evidence to carry a probative weight on the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  33. The Comparative Advantages of Brain-Based Lie Detection: The P300 Concealed Information Test and Pre-trial Bargaining.John Danaher - 2015 - International Journal of Evidence and Proof 19 (1).
    The lie detector test has long been treated with suspicion by the law. Recently, several authors have called this suspicion into question. They argue that the lie detector test may have considerable forensic benefits, particularly if we move past the classic, false-positive prone, autonomic nervous system-based (ANS-based) control question test, to the more reliable, brain-based, concealed information test. These authors typically rely on a “comparative advantage” argument to make their case. According to this argument, we should not be so suspicious (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  34. Evolutionary Psychology: The Burdens of Proof.Elisabeth A. Lloyd - 1999 - Biology and Philosophy 14 (2):211-233.
    I discuss two types of evidential problems with the most widely touted experiments in evolutionary psychology, those performed by Leda Cosmides and interpreted by Cosmides and John Tooby. First, and despite Cosmides and Tooby's claims to the contrary, these experiments don't fulfil the standards of evidence of evolutionary biology. Second Cosmides and Tooby claim to have performed a crucial experiment, and to have eliminated rival approaches. Though they claim that their results are consistent with their theory but contradictory to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   42 citations  
  35. Legal proof and statistical conjunctions.Lewis D. Ross - 2020 - Philosophical Studies 178 (6):2021-2041.
    A question, long discussed by legal scholars, has recently provoked a considerable amount of philosophical attention: ‘Is it ever appropriate to base a legal verdict on statistical evidence alone?’ Many philosophers who have considered this question reject legal reliance on bare statistics, even when the odds of error are extremely low. This paper develops a puzzle for the dominant theories concerning why we should eschew bare statistics. Namely, there seem to be compelling scenarios in which there are (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  36.  95
    Dignified death as a right: the legal visibility of finitude.Alvaro de Azevedo Gonzaga, Lucia Alonso Falleiros & Felipe Labruna - 2024 - Revista Bioética 32:e3629EN.
    The right to a dignified death is largely overlooked by Brazilian law. This neglect of the end-of-life process and its ramifications is the focus of this study, which aims at an exploratory survey to identify pertinent aspects requiring development to ensure a dignified end-of-life experience. In total, 50 publications were examined with online and physical surveys of works published up to March 2023. They express concerns regarding ethical dilemmas in caring for individuals nearing the end of life, yet they do (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  37. Evidence, Risk, and Proof Paradoxes: Pessimism about the Epistemic Project.Giada Fratantonio - 2021 - International Journal of Evidence and Proof:online first.
    Why can testimony alone be enough for findings of liability? Why statistical evidence alone can’t? These questions underpin the “Proof Paradox” (Redmayne 2008, Enoch et al. 2012). Many epistemologists have attempted to explain this paradox from a purely epistemic perspective. I call it the “Epistemic Project”. In this paper, I take a step back from this recent trend. Stemming from considerations about the nature and role of standards of proof, I define three requirements that any successful account (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  38. Legal Agreements and the Capacities of Agents.Andrei Buckareff - 2014 - In Law and the Philosophy of Action. Brill. pp. 195-219.
    Most work at the intersection of law and the philosophy of action focuses on criminal responsibility. Unfortunately, this focus has been at the expense of reflecting on how the philosophy of action might help illuminate our understanding of issues in civil law. In this essay, focusing on Anglo-American jurisprudence, we examine the conditions under which a party to a legal agreement is deemed to have the capacity required to be bound by that agreement. We refer to this condition as (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  39. Juvenile Self-Control and Legal Responsibility: Building a Scalar Standard.Katrina L. Sifferd, Tyler Fagan & William Hirstein - 2020 - In Alfred Mele (ed.), Surrounding Self-Control. Oxford University Press, Usa.
    US criminal courts have recently moved toward seeing juveniles as inherently less culpable than their adult counterparts, influenced by a growing mass of neuroscientific and psychological evidence. In support of this trend, this chapter argues that the criminal law’s notion of responsible agency requires both the cognitive capacity to understand one’s actions and the volitional control to conform one’s actions to legal standards. These capacities require, among other things, a minimal working set of executive functions—a suite of mental (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  40. “Beyond Standard Legal Positivism and ‘Aggressive’ Natural Law: Some Thoughts on Judge’ O’Scannlain’s ‘Third Way’”.Michael Baur - 2011 - Fordham Law Review 79 (4):1529-1539.
    With his contribution on "The Natural Law in the American Tradition," Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain has begun the indispensable task of laying the groundwork for sound jurisprudential reasoning in the natural law tradition. It is on the basis of this groundwork that we can begin to appreciate what natural law reasoning might mean, and what it does not mean, for contemporary American legal thinking. More specifically, it is on the basis of this groundwork that one can begin to articulate what (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  41. Determination of causal associations in occupational medicine and the medico-legal context: references and standards.Gustavo de Almeida - 2021 - Revista Brasileira de Medicina Do Trabalho 19 (2):231-239.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  42. Legal Ethics — Attorney Conflicts of Interest — The Effect of Screening Procedures and the Appearance of Impropriety Standard on the Vicarious Disqualification of a Law Firm.Luke William Hunt - 2002 - Tennessee Law Review 70 (1).
    This paper analyzes ethical issues relating to lawyer mobility.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  43. The Industrial Ontologies Foundry proof-of-concept project.Evan Wallace, Dimitris Kiritsis, Barry Smith & Chris Will - 2018 - In Ilkyeong Moon, Gyu M. Lee, Jinwoo Park, Dimitris Kiritsis & Gregor von Cieminski (eds.), Advances in Production Management Systems. Smart Manufacturing for Industry 4.0. Springer. pp. 402-409.
    The current industrial revolution is said to be driven by the digitization that exploits connected information across all aspects of manufacturing. Standards have been recognized as an important enabler. Ontology-based information standard may provide benefits not offered by current information standards. Although there have been ontologies developed in the industrial manufacturing domain, they have been fragmented and inconsistent, and little has received a standard status. With successes in developing coherent ontologies in the biological, biomedical, and financial domains, an (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  44. Should Legal Proof Be Binary?Lewis Ross - 2024 - In The Philosophy of Legal Proof. Cambridge University Press.
    Discusses the question of whether trials should just use two verdicts (e.g. guilty or not guilty) or whether they use multiple verdicts.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  45. Against a singular understanding of legal capacity: Criminal responsibility and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.Jillian Craigie - 2015 - International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 40:6-14.
    The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is being used to argue for wider recognition of the legal capacity of people with mental disabilities. This raises a question about the implications of the Convention for attributions of criminal responsibility. The present paper works towards an answer by analysing the relationship between legal capacity in relation to personal decisions and criminal acts. Its central argument is that because moral and political considerations play an essential (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  46. The Possibility of a Uniform Legal Language at the Interplay of Legal Discourse, Semiotics and Blockchain Networks.Pierangelo Blandino - 2024 - International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 1:1-29.
    This paper explores the possibility of a standard legal language (e.g. English) for a principled evolution of law in line with technological development. In doing so, reference is made to blockchain networks and smart contracts to emphasise the discontinuity with the liberal legal tradition when it comes to decentralisation and binary code language. Methodologically, the argument is built on the underlying relation between law, semiotics and new forms of media adding to natural language; namely: code and symbols. In (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  47. The Legal Research and Issue of Death Penalty.Kiyooung Kim - 2015 - European Academic Research 3 (6):6235-6261.
    The abolition of death penalty is one commonplace issue over global jurisdictions. Nevertheless, it is also true that a surfeit of research has been dealt either in any specific way of legal research or general method of social science. This tends to create a track of practice that they approach the issue in its own national standard of research or discrete logic and narrative. The author proposes an orthodox of legal research by exemplifying the issue of death penalty. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  48. Comparative legal cultures: on traditions classified, their rapprochement & transfer, and the anarchy of hyper-rationalism with appendix on legal ethnography.Csaba Varga - 2012 - Budapest: Szent István Társulat.
    Disciplinary issues -- Field studies -- Appendix: Theory of law : legal ethnography, or, the theoretical fruits of the inquiries into folkways. /// Reedition of papers in English spanning from 1995 to 2008 /// DISCIPLINARY ISSUES -- LAW AS CULTURE? [2002] 9–14 // TRENDS IN COMPARATIVE LEGAL STUDIES [2002] 15–17 // COMPARATIVE LEGAL CULTURES: ATTEMPTS AT CONCEPTUALISATION [1997] 19–28: 1. Legal Culture in a Cultural-anthropological Approach 19 / 2. Legal Culture in a Sociological Approach 21 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  49. The harmonization of domestic and international human rights standards on criminalization of rape.Deepa Kansra - 2021 - Rights Compass.
    In the field of human rights, expressions like justice and legal reform are closely linked to the process of harmonization of domestic and international human rights standards. Harmonization of human rights standards can be described as a process wherein international human rights are incorporated or given full effect to at the domestic level. [i] To harmonize the two set of standards i.e. domestic and international is viewed as both a commitment and obligation of states under international (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  50. An infrastructural account of scientific objectivity for legal contexts and bloodstain pattern analysis.W. John Koolage, Lauren M. Williams & Morgen L. Barroso - 2021 - Science in Context 34 (1):101-119.
    ArgumentIn the United States, scientific knowledge is brought before the courts by way of testimony – the testimony of scientific experts. We argue that this expertise is best understoodfirstas related to the quality of the underlying scienceand thenin terms of who delivers it. Bloodstain pattern analysis (BPA), a contemporary forensic science, serves as the vaulting point for our exploration of objectivity as a metric for the quality of a science in judicial contexts. We argue that BPA fails to meet the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
1 — 50 / 941