Standards of Proof Revisited
16 Pages Posted: 29 Dec 2008
Abstract
This essay focuses not on how factfinders process evidence but on how they apply the specified standard of proof to their finding. The oddity that prompts speculation is that the common law asks in noncriminal cases only that the fact appear more likely than not, while the civil law seems to apply the same high standard in these cases as it does in criminal cases. As a psychological explanation of the cognitive processes involved, some theorists posit that the bulk of factfinding is an unconscious process, powerful but dangerous, which generates a level of confidence against which the factfinder could apply the standard of proof. But this foggy confidence-based theory fails because standards of proof should, and factfinders arguably do, concern themselves with probability rather than confidence. Psychology also cannot explain the divide between common and civil law because the real explanation likely lies in the different goals that the two procedural systems are pursuing through their standards of proof.
Keywords: civil procedure, comparative law, evidence, standards of proof
JEL Classification: K41
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?
Recommended Papers
-
Juror First Votes in Criminal Trials
By Stephen P. Garvey, Paula Hannaford-agor, ...
-
The Role of Age in Jury Selection and Trial Outcomes
By Shamena Anwar, Patrick J. Bayer, ...
-
A Fair and Impartial Jury? The Role of Age in Jury Selection and Trial Outcomes
By Shamena Anwar, Patrick J. Bayer, ...