Abstract
This article explores what ‘plausible’ means in statements about legal evidence and shows that it is highly ambiguous. Twelve different meanings of ‘plausibility’ are identified and distinguished from each other by definitions. Contrary to what has been claimed by some evidence scholars (Allen and Pardo, 2019), the article shows that all uses of ‘plausibility’ can be captured in terms of probability. The author also shows that the exposed ambiguity is deeply problematic for legal practice and legal scholarship. The fundamental principle of justice that ‘like cases should be treated alike’ is endangered when the standard of proof is expressed in an ambiguous way, and the scientific testability of hypotheses about legal fact-finding is undermined when these hypotheses are formulated in ambiguous terms.
Published Version
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.
