Defining the Standard of Proof in Jury Instructions
Defining the Standard of Proof in Jury Instructions
复制标题
定义陪审团指示中的证明标准
DOI：
10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00197.x
复制
发表时间：
1990
影响因子：
8.2
通讯作者：
D. K. Kagehiro
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. K. Kagehiro
对陪审员理解的研究进行了回顾，并特别注意了最近比较证明标准三个层面(证据优势、明确令人信服的证据和排除合理怀疑)的定义类型的研究。量化定义(其中证明标准以概率表示，量化定义和法律定义相结合具有预期效果；随着证明标准变得更加严格，有利于原告的判决数量减少。非量化的定义没有达到其对裁决的预期效果。量化定义在准确而简明地传达确定性水平方面的更大效率归因于它们在具有已知终点(即0-100%)的区间标度上的位置所提供的隐含上下文。
Research on juror comprehension is reviewed with special attention to recent studies comparing types of definitions of three levels of the standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and beyond a reasonable doubt). Quantified definitions, (in which the standard of proof was expressed in probability terms, and combined quantified and legal definitions had their intended effect; verdicts favoring the plaintiffs decreased in number as the standard of proof became stricter. Nonquantified definitions did not achieve their intended effect on verdicts. The greater effectiveness of quantified definitions in communicating certainty levels precisely and concisely is attributed to the implicit context provided by their positions on an interval scale with known endpoints (i.e., 0-100%).