EXPLORING THE PROOF PARADOXES

Mike Redmayne

104 citations0/0 files storedLegal Theory

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Legal processes and jurisprudence Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems

Abstract

This article explores a long-running debate in evidence theory about the significance of certain puzzling cases where there is reluctance to ascribe liability despite a high probability of liability. It focuses on certain analyses of these puzzles, distinguishing between inferential, moral, and knowledge-based analyses. The article emphasizes the richness and complexity of the puzzle cases and suggests why they are difficult to resolve.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 104 citations exist upstream.

Cited by

2017When Does Evidence Suffice for Conviction?2017Truth, knowledge, and the standard of proof in criminal law 2019The Reasonable and the Relevant: Legal Standards of Proof 2022Knowledge and Legal Proof 2016The Burdens of Proof 2021Four Arguments for Denying that Lottery Beliefs Are Justified 2019Rehabilitating Statistical Evidence 2019Justification, knowledge, and normality

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.