Skip Navigation


Law, Probability and Risk Advance Access originally published online on January 31, 2007
Law, Probability and Risk 2006 5(2):159-165; doi:10.1093/lpr/mgl017
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
5/2/159    most recent
mgl017v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Franklin, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2007]. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

Case comment—United States v. Copeland, 369 F. Supp. 2d 275 (E.D.N.Y. 2005): quantification of the ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ standard

James Franklin{dagger}

School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia

{dagger} Email: j.franklin{at}unsw.edu.au

Received on 21 September 2006. Accepted on 30 October 2006.


  Abstract

There are many reasons for objecting to quantifying the ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ standard of criminal law as a percentage probability. They are divided into ethical and policy reasons, on the one hand, and reasons arising from the nature of logical probabilities, on the other. It is argued that these reasons are substantial and suggest that the criminal standard of proof should not be given a precise number. But those reasons do not rule out a minimal imprecise number. ‘Well above 80%’ is suggested as a standard, implying that any attempt by a prosecutor or jury to take the ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ standard to be 80% or less should be ruled out as a matter of law.

Keywords: evidence standard; proof beyond reasonable doubt; quantification; logical probability


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.