Gauging court adjudication: Qualification and quantification

Abstract

Abstract In common law jurisdictions, the notion of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is frequently related to notions such as the belief or certainty of a judge or a juror about reality. The notion of balance of probabilities is however related to likelihood or probability. In the present study, we link belief and proof by introducing the notion of epistemic modality, which is concerned with the speaker’s belief in propositional probability. The variation in the orientation of epistemic modality helps to integrate the two levels of proof and bridge the apparent test gap between them. The notion of relevance is further introduced in order to clarify the nature of legal proof by taking rape cases as example. This study also provides an integrated model to improve but diversify the expressions in terms of the burden of proof. For most courts, court judgments are processed only according to the general case data, procedural context; such kinds of fact-based information processing and information retrieval seldom help the court to make its decision unless with tremendous and repetitious work. For the consistency and efficiency of court adjudication, it is suggested in the present study that a Knowledge Management (KM) model mainly based on elements and factors which decide or affect the criminal liability. Such a KM model provides an overall framework, though non-exhaustive, and therefore makes court adjudication within narrow discretion and achieves the maximum justice.