A Study on the Problems of the Theories about the Hearing and the Burden of Proof in the Appeal Litigation applying to the Party Litigation

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 ◽  
pp. 171-202
Author(s):  
Kyung-Jun Kim
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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document