Decision Theory, Relative Plausibility and the Criminal Standard of Proof

Biedermann, Alex, Caruso, David and Kotsoglou, Kyriakos (2021) Decision Theory, Relative Plausibility and the Criminal Standard of Proof. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 15 (2). pp. 131-157. ISSN 1871-9791

Full text not available from this repository. (Request a copy)

Abstract

schemes to depict the structural relationships between the core elements of the two accounts, it is demonstrated in what sense they can be considered logically related and congruent. The demonstration shows that the principal disagreements among the proponents of the two examined theories derive from differences in (i) the criteria used to judge the adequacy of competing accounts of legal decision-making, and (ii) the level of formalization of the bases of decisions in each candidate account. This structural analysis supports the view that adherence to one or the other of the examined perspectives does not imply a contradiction, but reflects the coverage of different aspects of the same overall decision architecture. Using decision-theoretic notions, our analyses also provide a way to explain RP decisions through an explicit criterion, thus providing a reply to the recurrent critique that RP theory lacks specific means to justify its decisional framework.

Item Type:	Article
Uncontrolled Keywords:	standard of proof, criminal process, decision theory, relative plausibility
Subjects:	M100 Law by area M200 Law by Topic
Department:	Faculties > Business and Law > Northumbria Law School
Depositing User:	Rachel Branson
Date Deposited:	26 Feb 2020 10:05
Last Modified:	24 Jun 2021 10:44
URI:	http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/42224

Downloads