Metadialogues for Resolving Burden of Proof Disputes

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Walton
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof

The CSI Effect

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Chin
Keyword(s):  
Forensic Science ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
High Standard ◽  
Juror Decision Making ◽  
Scholarly Work ◽  
Television Programs ◽  
Forensic Evidence ◽  
Csi Effect ◽  
Real Phenomenon ◽  
Scene Investigation

The CSI Effect posits that exposure to television programs that portray forensic science (e.g., CSI: Crime Scene Investigation) can change the way jurors evaluate forensic evidence. The most commonly researched hypothesis under the CSI Effect suggests that shows like CSI depict an unrealistically high standard of forensic science and thus unreasonably inflate the expectations of jurors. Jurors are thus more likely to vote to acquit, and prosecutors face higher burden of proof. We review (1) the theory behind the CSI Effect, (2) the perception of the effect among legal actors, (3) the academic treatment of the effect, and (4) how courts have dealt with the effect. We demonstrate that while legal actors do see the CSI Effect as a serious issue, there is virtually no empirical evidence suggesting it is a real phenomenon. Moreover, many of the remedies employed by courts may do no more than introduce bias into juror decision making or even trigger the CSI Effect when it would not normally occur (i.e., the self-fulfilling prophesy). We end with suggestions for the proper treatment of the CSI Effect in courts, and directions for future scholarly work.

Denying the Antecedent as a Legitimate Argumentative Strategy: A Dialectical Model

2004 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
David Godden
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Standard Account ◽  
Argumentative Strategy

The standard account of denying the antecedent (DA) is that it is a deductively invalid form of argument, and that, in a conditional argument, to argue from the falsity of the antecedent to the falsity of the consequent is always fallacious. In this paper, we argue that DA is not always a fallacious argumentative strategy. Instead, there is a legitimate usage ofDA according to which it is a defeasible argument against the acceptability of a claim. The dialectical effect of denying the antecedent is to shift the burden of proof back to the original proponent of a claim. We provide a model of this non-fallacious usage which is built upon pragmatic models of argumentation.

Armchair Arguments

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugh Lafollette
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Gun Control ◽  
Know How

Valuable armchair arguments are shaped by significant reservoirs of knowledge, albeit knowledge that lies in their background, rather than the foreground. So understood armchair arguments are essential to any serious investigation of the issue of gun control. They help establish the burden of proof: they show what it is reasonable to believe if the rights-based arguments and the empirical evidence are less than compelling. They inform the arguments about the serious right to bear arms. They are essential in seeking and evaluating empirical evidence: they enable researchers to know how to structure empirical research and how to interpret their findings.

Intersectional Discrimination

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shreya Atrey
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Intersectionality Theory ◽  
Indirect Discrimination ◽  
The Us ◽  
Treaty Body ◽  
The Eu

Why has intersectionality fallen by the wayside of discrimination law? Thirty years after Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term ‘intersectionality’, discrimination lawyers continue to be plagued by this question across a range of jurisdictions, including the US, UK, South Africa, India, Canada, as well as the UN treaty body jurisprudence and the jurisprudence of the EU and the ECHR. Claimants continue to struggle to establish intersectional claims based on more than one ground of discrimination. This book renews the bid for realizing intersectionality in comparative discrimination law. It presents a juridical account of intersectional discrimination as a category of discrimination inspired by intersectionality theory, and distinct from other categories of thinking about discrimination including strict, substantial, capacious, and contextual forms of single-axis discrimination, multiple discrimination, additive discrimination as in combination or compound discrimination, and embedded discrimination. Intersectional discrimination, defined in these theoretical and categorial terms, then needs to be translated into doctrine, recalibrating each of the central concepts and tools of discrimination law to respond to it—including the text of non-discrimination guarantees, the idea of grounds, the test for analogous grounds, the distinction between direct and indirect discrimination, the substantive meaning of discrimination, the use of comparators, the justification analysis and standard of review, the burden of proof between parties, and the range of remedies available. With this, the book presents a granular account of intersectional discrimination in theoretical, conceptual, and doctrinal terms, and aims to transform discrimination law in the process of realizing intersectionality within its discourse.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document