Abstract
The doubt is not related to innocence but only to guilt, the latter being the exclusive object of the process. The proof of guilt, being always of inductive nature, cannot accept the deductive method that connotes the relationship between premise (minor and major) and conclusion. From here arises the necessity that beyond reasonable doubt must respond to the postulates of logic and the motivation of judgments is an example. Research tends to show whether there is a valid theory to overcome the doubt of uncertainty about guilt-innocence. Can jurisprudence (mathematics-legal) as an exact science aid in the discovery of a perfect syllogism for a valid theory of reasonable doubt?
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Quaestio facti. Revista internacional sobre razonamiento probatorio
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
