2021
DOI: 10.1111/phis.12200
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Justification, excuse, and proof beyond reasonable doubt

Abstract: The law requires criminal guilt to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. There are two different approaches to construing this legal rule. On an epistemic approach, the rule is construed in terms of justified belief or knowledge; on a probabilistic approach, the rule is construed in terms of satisfying a probabilistic threshold. An epistemic construction of the rule has this advantage over a probabilistic construction: the former can while the latter cannot excuse the state from blame for a false conviction. Th… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
1
1

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 70 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This includes the Bayesian and explanation-based approaches. In contrast, Ho (2021) distinguishes between probabilistic approaches -such as the Bayesian -which cast proof beyond a reasonable doubt in terms of a probabilistic threshold, and epistemic approaches which construe the reasonable doubt rule in terms of justified belief or knowledge. 18 Admittedly, 'truth' is a loaded word among philosophers.…”
Section: Walter Mcmillianmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This includes the Bayesian and explanation-based approaches. In contrast, Ho (2021) distinguishes between probabilistic approaches -such as the Bayesian -which cast proof beyond a reasonable doubt in terms of a probabilistic threshold, and epistemic approaches which construe the reasonable doubt rule in terms of justified belief or knowledge. 18 Admittedly, 'truth' is a loaded word among philosophers.…”
Section: Walter Mcmillianmentioning
confidence: 99%