排除合理怀疑证明标准:陪审员的理解与改革

IF 0.7 2区 社会学 Q2 LAW International Journal of Evidence & Proof Pub Date : 2022-07-25 DOI:10.1177/13657127221114498
Olivia K. H. Smith
{"title":"排除合理怀疑证明标准:陪审员的理解与改革","authors":"Olivia K. H. Smith","doi":"10.1177/13657127221114498","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The beyond a reasonable doubt (BARD) standard of proof is the foundation of criminal court proceedings in the U.S. However, both empirical and field studies alike demonstrate that jurors do not correctly interpret and apply the standard. Misinterpretations of the standard can have large implications for criminal defendants on trial. Thus, researchers and legal scholars have attempted to clarify the standard through various methods (e.g. quantification, reasoning, linguistic simplification, and procedural changes), and some of these methods have promising features. The purpose of the current review is to provide a comprehensive overview of these proposals and determine future directions for researchers and legal practitioners.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"26 1","pages":"291 - 308"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof: Juror understanding and reform\",\"authors\":\"Olivia K. H. Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/13657127221114498\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The beyond a reasonable doubt (BARD) standard of proof is the foundation of criminal court proceedings in the U.S. However, both empirical and field studies alike demonstrate that jurors do not correctly interpret and apply the standard. Misinterpretations of the standard can have large implications for criminal defendants on trial. Thus, researchers and legal scholars have attempted to clarify the standard through various methods (e.g. quantification, reasoning, linguistic simplification, and procedural changes), and some of these methods have promising features. The purpose of the current review is to provide a comprehensive overview of these proposals and determine future directions for researchers and legal practitioners.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54168,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Evidence & Proof\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"291 - 308\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Evidence & Proof\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221114498\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221114498","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

无合理怀疑(BARD)证明标准是美国刑事法院诉讼的基础。然而,实证研究和实地研究都表明,陪审员没有正确解释和应用该标准。对该标准的错误解释可能会对审判中的刑事被告产生重大影响。因此,研究人员和法律学者试图通过各种方法(如量化、推理、语言简化和程序变更)来澄清标准,其中一些方法具有很好的特点。本次审查的目的是全面概述这些建议,并确定研究人员和法律从业者的未来方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof: Juror understanding and reform
The beyond a reasonable doubt (BARD) standard of proof is the foundation of criminal court proceedings in the U.S. However, both empirical and field studies alike demonstrate that jurors do not correctly interpret and apply the standard. Misinterpretations of the standard can have large implications for criminal defendants on trial. Thus, researchers and legal scholars have attempted to clarify the standard through various methods (e.g. quantification, reasoning, linguistic simplification, and procedural changes), and some of these methods have promising features. The purpose of the current review is to provide a comprehensive overview of these proposals and determine future directions for researchers and legal practitioners.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
20.00%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
Preponderance, proportionality, stepwise liability Stepwise liability: Between the preponderance rule and proportional liability The skewing effect of outcome evidence The economic case for conviction multiplicity What matters for assessing insider witnesses? Results of an experimental vignette study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1