【24h】

The Philosophy of Reasonability in Law

机译:法律合理性哲学

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

It irked my curiosity that the standards of proof we have in our Common Law system all depend on how "reasonable" the proof sounds and how bulletproof the evidence "appears" to be. For instance, criminal law requires proof "beyond a reasonable doubt (BRD)," where jurors must have no reasonable or possible doubt about the completeness of the evidence in the case before someone is put to death or adjudged guilty; this is a sine qua non, since nothing short of such a high standard is acceptable in matters concerning life and death. Civil litigation requires either "clear and convincing evidence (CCE)" or a "preponderance of evidence (POE)." CCE is required when there is a potential loss of important and vital interests, such as deportation, involuntary commitment to a mental health institution, disbarment, and termination of parental rights. POE is required, such as in divorce, construction claims litigation, professional liability, tort springing from negligence, and discrimination cases, where it only needs to be reasonably shown that it is more likely than not that the stated contention is true.
机译:令我好奇的是,我们在普通法体系中拥有的证据标准全都取决于证据听起来的“合理性”和证据“看起来”的防弹性。例如,刑法要求“超越合理怀疑(BRD)”的证据,其中陪审员必须在对某人判处死刑或宣判有罪之前对证据的完整性不存在任何合理或可能的怀疑;这是必要条件,因为在有关生死的问题上,只有如此高的标准是不可接受的。民事诉讼需要“清晰而有说服力的证据(CCE)”或“优势证据(POE)”。当潜在的重要和切身利益的丧失,例如驱逐出境,对精神卫生机构的非自愿承诺,剥夺资格和终止父母权利时,需要CCE。 POE是必需的,例如离婚,建筑索赔诉讼,专业责任,因疏忽而产生的侵权行为以及歧视案件,这些POE仅需要合理地表明,陈述的论点是真实的可能性更大。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号