Justice In-Between

Abstract

Abstract Justice In-Between is a study of intermediate criminal verdicts and of their justification. It challenges the widespread dogmatism favouring the binary verdict system, that is, a verdict system such as that adopted in England and Wales, characterised by a single standard of proof and two possible verdicts, acquittal and conviction. Justice In-Between studies historical and extant examples of intermediate criminal verdicts and engages with the debates that have accompanied them, including the popular argument that intermediate criminal verdicts are incompatible with the presumption of innocence. In doing so, the book offers an original account of the meaning and of the justification of the presumption. Relying on decision theory, Justice In-Between makes a case for intermediate criminal verdicts and shows that such decision-theoretic case is viable under both consequentialist and deontological theories of punishment. Indeed, the book argues that one cannot investigate the choice of the verdict system in isolation from the question of the justification for punishing.

Cite this work

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

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 8 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.