Abstract
In the theory of evidential reasoning in a criminal trial, there is a discrepancy in the subject matter of proof. There are two main positions. The first one states that the object of proof is fact, while the second one is a statement expressed in a sentence. The article presents a possible solution to this controversy. The starting point is the observation that the bearers of truth are statements/sentences. Therefore, since truth is one of the basic values in criminal proceedings, it results that the object of proof is a claim. Secondly, in the course of evidential reasoning is carried out in the form of thought operations - these can only be carried out with the use of sentences. The article ends with an conclusion that the object of evidence is a proposition; proving the fact is epistemologically impossible. Such a solution seems to be beneficial for the theory of proof, as it may improve the quality of evidential reasoning, including the quality of justifications of verdicts.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: 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.
