Estándares de suficiencia probatoria, moralidad política y costos de error: el núcleo inconsistente de la epistemología jurídica de Larry Laudan = Standards of Proof, Political Morality, and Cost of Error: The Inconsistent Core of Larry Laudan’s Legal Epistemology
This article makes explicit a braid of inconsistencies rising from three argumentative lines that Larry Laudan defends along his thought regarding legal proof. First, Laudan’s argument criticizing Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (BARD) formula as an extremally subjective criterion of proof is reconstructe...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2020 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Varias* (Consorci de Biblioteques Universitáries de Catalunya, Centre de Serveis Científics i Acadèmics de Catalunya) |
| Repositorio: | Recercat. Dipósit de la Recerca de Catalunya |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:recercat.cat:10256/18090 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/10256/18090 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Prova (Dret) Evidence (Law) Dret -- Metodologia Law -- Methodology |
| Sumario: | This article makes explicit a braid of inconsistencies rising from three argumentative lines that Larry Laudan defends along his thought regarding legal proof. First, Laudan’s argument criticizing Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (BARD) formula as an extremally subjective criterion of proof is reconstructed. Second, the article underlines some of his arguments to claim that BARD produces a huge quantity of guilty defendant’s acquittals. Third, Laudan’s conception of genuine standards of proof is taken into consideration. After showing an apparent inconsistency between Laudan’s first and second line of criticism, the paper shows that Laudan’s proposal fails, in part given his own arguments against BARD. A different direction of solutions will be suggested |
|---|