Legal vs. quantified definitions of standards of proof
Legal vs. quantified definitions of standards of proof
复制标题
证明标准的法律与量化定义
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1985
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
W. Clark Stanton
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. K. Kagehiro;W. Clark Stanton
三个实验室进行了比较法律的（未量化）的定义的三个标准的证据（“优势的证据”，“明确和令人信服的证据”，“排除合理怀疑”）与量化的定义，其中的标准证明是表示在概率方面（51%，71%，和91%的概率的真理）。在第一个实验中，量化的定义产生了预期的效果--随着证据标准的严格，有利于原告的判决减少了--但法律的定义没有产生预期的效果。这些结果在第二个实验中得到了重复;此外，将两种类型的定义（法律的和量化的）结合起来的陪审团指示没有达到预期的效果。第三个实验的结果表明，某些法律的定义在出现在比较语境中时，可能能够传达其预期的难度水平。
Three laboratory experiments were conducted to compare legal (unquantified) definitions of three standards of proof (“preponderance of the evidence,” “clear and convincing evidence,” and “beyond a reasonable doubt”) with quantified definitions, in which the standards of proof were expressed in probability terms (51%, 71%, and 91% probability of truth). In the first experiment, the quantified definitions had their intended effect — verdicts favoring the plaintiffs decreased as the standard of proof became stricter— but the legal definitions did not have their intended effect. These results were replicated in the second experiment; in addition, jury instructions that combined the two types of definitions (legal and quantified) did not have their intended effect. Results of the third experiment suggest that some legal definitions may be able to communicate their intended difficulty level when they appear in a comparative context.