scholarly journals Error Costs, Legal Standards of Proof, and Statistical Significance

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle M. Burtis ◽  
Jonah B. Gelbach ◽  
Bruce H. Kobayashi
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Legal Standards ◽  
Standards Of Proof ◽  
Error Costs

PUENTES ENTRE LOS HECHOS Y EL DERECHO APLICABLE EN LA VERIFICACIÓN PROBATORIA: ESTANDAR Y VALORACIÓN DE LA PRUEBA

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (116) ◽  
pp. 1-25
Author(s):  
Álvaro Pérez Ragone
Keyword(s):  
Decision Makers ◽  
Legal Argumentation ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Legal Standards ◽  
Standards Of Proof ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Basic Minimum ◽  
Evidentiary Standard

The legal argumentation on controversial facts deals with the evidence that allows reaching a precise verdict on the facts. The evidence is necessary to support the factual assertions made by the parties and the conclusions of fact made by the decision makers. But the test per se does not yield verdicts. The evidence must be evaluated and whoever decides must consider whether or not it satisfies a basic minimum to consider a fact proven, if it meets a standard of proof. Much work has been done on the subject of legal standards of proof. Legal argumentation theorists, evidence scholars, civil and criminal process scholars, among others, have extensively addressed this issue. Some of them have made an analytical effort to clarify the idea of an evidentiary standard; others have done descriptive work to understand how the standards actually work; Others have done a kind of normative work in the hope of suggesting better or at least better defined standards; and the best contributions to the debate do more than one of these things at the same time.

German Flooding of the Pontine Marshes in World War II: Biological Warfare Or Total War Tactic?

2010 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erhard Geissler ◽  
Jeanne Guillemin
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
State Level ◽  
Historical Record ◽  
Biological Weapons ◽  
Biological Warfare ◽  
Land Mines ◽  
Total War ◽  
Legal Standards ◽  
Archival Documents ◽  
Standards Of Proof

The German army's 1943 flooding of the Pontine Marshes south of Rome, which later caused a sharp rise in malaria cases among Italian civilians, has recently been described by historian Frank Snowden as a unique instance of biological warfare and bioterrorism in the European theater of war and, consequently, as a violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibiting chemical and biological warfare. We argue that archival documents fail to support this allegation, on several counts. As a matter of historical record, Hitler prohibited German biological weapons (BW) development and consistently adhered to the Geneva Protocol. Rather than biological warfare against civilians, the Wehrmacht used flooding, land mines, and the destruction of vital infrastructure to obstruct the Allied advance. To protect its own troops in the area, the German army sought to contain the increased mosquito breeding likely to be caused by the flooding. Italians returning to the Pontine Marshes after the German retreat in 1944 suffered malaria as a result of environmental destruction, which was banned by the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions and by subsequent treaties. In contrast, a state's violation of the Geneva Protocol, whether past or present, involves the use of germ weapons and, by inference, a state-level capability. Any allegation of such a serious violation demands credible evidence that meets high scientific and legal standards of proof.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document