Burden Of Proof Research Articles

Forensic Pathologist Testimony, Part 2: Special Issues and Considerations.

Forensic pathologists routinely testify in courts of law as part of their occupation. As such, part of their training involves learning how to testify responsibly and competently. As experts, they are permitted to offer opinions in order to assist the triers of fact. This review examines such concepts as burden of proof by manner of death, mechanisms of death, survival intervals, and the differences between possibilities, probabilities, and reasonable degree of medical certainty. It also addresses legal concepts and issues that may arise in court, including those of pain and suffering, cognitive bias, objections, attempts at witness impeachment, and surrogate witness testimony, as well as a summary of pertinent case law. The special issues and considerations of the expert forensic pathologist are discussed with the aim to summarize some of the key issues that may arise in court for the forensic pathologist.

On Tang Junyi’s Critique of Anselm’s Argument for the Existence of God

Anselm’s argument for the existence of God posits that the concept of God inherently implies its existence. Tang Junyi critiques this argument from two fundamental angles. Firstly, he argues that the contingency of human thought places an unwarranted burden of proof on the existence of God, introducing an inherent contradiction within the argument’s premise. Secondly, he contends that Anselm’s argument fails to deduce the existence of God from empirical things. Tang’s empirical approach to critiquing the argument bears a superficial resemblance to St. Thomas Aquinas’s cosmological argument for God’s existence, yet a profound difference exists between the two, precluding their equivalence. Delving deeper, Tang’s critique is rooted in the Confucian philosophy. Nevertheless, Tang’s critique, while insightful, does not fully dismantle Anselm’s argument, underscoring the intrinsic differences and tensions between Chinese and Western perspectives on religion and philosophy.

Is asthma mortality decreasing or increasing in Brazil? The burden of proof

Is asthma mortality decreasing or increasing in Brazil? The burden of proof

Evaluating the Replicability of Social Priming Studies

To assess the replicability of social priming findings we reviewed the extant close replication attempts in the field. In total, we found 70 close replications, that replicated 49 unique findings. Ninety-four percent of the replications had effect sizes smaller than the effect they replicated and only 17% of the replications reported a significant p-value in the original direction. The strongest predictor of replication success was whether or not the replication team included at least one of the authors of the original paper. Twelve of the 18 replications with at least one original author produced a significant effect in the original direction and the meta-analytic average of these studies suggest a significant priming effect (d = 0.40, 95% CI[0.23; 0.58]). In stark contrast, none of the 52 replications by independent research teams produced a significant effect in the original direction and the meta-analytic average was virtually zero (d = 0.002, 95% CI[-0.03; 0.03]). We argue that these results have shifted the burden of proof back onto advocates of social priming. Successful replications from independent research teams will likely be required to convince sceptics that social priming exists at all.

Synthetic Media Detection, the Wheel, and the Burden of Proof

Deepfakes and other forms of synthetic media are widely regarded as serious threats to our knowledge of the world. Various technological responses to these threats have been proposed. The reactive approach proposes to use artificial intelligence to identify synthetic media. The proactive approach proposes to use blockchain and related technologies to create immutable records of verified media content. I argue that both approaches, but especially the reactive approach, are vulnerable to a problem analogous to the ancient problem of the criterion—a line of argument with skeptical implications. I argue that, while the proactive approach is relatively resistant to this objection, it faces its own serious challenges. In short, the proactive approach would place a heavy burden on users to verify their own content, a burden that is exacerbated by and is likely to exacerbate existing inequalities.

Securing privacy in the digital age: The quest for judicial protection of personal information

Personal information is a vital productive commodity in the digital economy, and its processing has seen unparalleled transformations in both breadth and depth. This article proposes to enhance the legal remedies for personal information rights in contemporary China. Research has revealed multiple practical challenges in China’s judicial practices, such as hesitance to prosecute owing to an absence of substantial legal foundation, improper distribution of the burden of proof, and inadequate integration of criminal-civil judicial safeguards for personal information. This paper advocates for China to elucidate the definition of personal information rights via legislation, enable the litigation of personal information infringement cases, and establish explicit criteria for their acceptance into judicial proceedings. Furthermore, China must develop an appropriate structure for distributing the burden of evidence. It must also use discretionary judgment to properly tackle the problems related to evaluating damages in instances of personal information violations.

Tax Authorities' Burden of Proof and Authority to Investigate Tax Cases

Tax Authorities' Burden of Proof and Authority to Investigate Tax Cases

Beyond Eyeball Tests: A Methodical Rebuttal to Fillon et al.'s Commentary.

In our original study, "Consumed by Creed" (Adam-Troian & Bélanger, 2024), we established significant and consistent associations between obsessive-compulsive disorder symptom severity and radical intentions across four distinct U.S. population samples-Environmentalists, Republicans, Democrats, and Muslims-partially or fully mediated by obsessive passion. Fillon et al. (2024) challenged our findings, alleging methodological errors and an excessive degree of researcher flexibility, which they claim could lead to false-positive results. In this response, we critically examine Fillon et al.'s commentary, arguing that it exemplifies flawed meta-scientific critique. We demonstrate that their approach relies on a series of unsupported and misleading claims, including a misinterpretation of the literature, unjustified reliance on visual data inspection, speculative assumptions about religious influences on our findings, and a shifting of the burden of proof. Through rigorous re-analyses, we reaffirm the robustness of our original results and address the unfounded allegations regarding our methodological practices. We also critique Fillon et al.'s approach, highlighting the necessity of domain-specific expertize in meta-scientific evaluations and cautioning against the risks of speculative and defamatory criticism in academic discourse. This exchange underscores the importance of maintaining rigorous standards in both original research and its critique, ensuring that scientific debate remains grounded in evidence rather than conjecture.

Inductive and Deductive Reasoning in Byrom vs. Johns Hopkins Bayview Hospital

The status quo that results from medical malpractice litigation is 85,000 medical malpractice lawsuits filed per year, of which 66% are potentially frivolous. There are also 3 million claims but only 85,000 are represented. There is something wrong with this status quo, which prompts questions about traditional decision-making Traditional decision-making is inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is hypothesis testing. The objective evidence and the burden of proof are the same in both; except hypothesis testing has a greater level of confidence. The differences are examined in detail. Of the parties involved in dispute resolution, medical experts are essential, medical experts are doctors. Doctors are familiar with hypothesis testing and threats to validity. Doctors, who are medical experts, are duty-bound to be objective. Hypothesis testing best satisfies this duty. Nothing prohibits medical experts from using hypothesis testing when they review a case to arrive at an opinion; although, until now, none do. Yet, as doctors, it is expected of them and they can never be prohibited from doing so. In the final analysis, traditional decision-making subjectively infers a departure from the standard of care; however, hypothesis testing objectively proves it.

Problems of Admissibility and Reliability of Metadata as Evidence

This paper examines the challenges surrounding the admissibility and reliability of metadata as evidence in civil proceedings. It explores the legal standards, authentication issues, and technical complexities involved in presenting metadata in court. The study analyzes key legal cases, technical methodologies, and emerging technologies that impact the use of metadata as evidence. It addresses concerns such as metadata alteration, spoliation, privacy issues, and cross-border challenges. The research highlights the importance of forensic soundness, expert testimony, and proper interpretation of metadata in legal contexts. Additionally, it discusses the application of traditional evidence rules to digital information and the evolving standards for burden of proof in electronic evidence. The paper concludes by considering future challenges posed by emerging technologies and the need for ongoing legal and technical education in this rapidly evolving field.

Prospects for the Application of Unexplained Wealth Order in the Forfeiture of Assets Proceeds of Corruption in Indonesia

This research focuses on discussing two things, namely (1) how the legal politics of regulating asset forfeiture for corruption crimes in Indonesia and (2) what are the prospects for applying the unexplained wealth order in asset forfeiture for corruption crimes in Indonesia. in this study it was found that: first, the legal politics of asset forfeiture for corruption crimes in Indonesia is still mainly oriented towards the process of asset forfeiture based on conviction, asset forfeiture can only be carried out if there is a judge's decision that is legally binding. However, if in the course of a criminal case there are difficulties in proof, the defendant dies in the judicial process, and after a court decision with permanent legal force it is known that there are assets or assets owned by the perpetrator that are the proceeds of crime, a civil lawsuit can be filed. however, it is different from the concept of unexplained wealth contained in the Criminal Asset Forfeiture Bill which has a broader dimension of civil filing. And the filing of a civil lawsuit is not an alternative to the criminal justice process. Asset forfeiture lawsuits through the criminal process can be filed before, during and after criminal judgements, in order to avoid obfuscation and the disappearance and conversion of assets resulting from corruption crimes. Secondly, the prospect of implementing unexplained wealth in Indonesia has existed through the establishment and drafting of the Criminal Asset Forfeiture Bill. However, this bill is not equipped with the obligation to reverse the burden of proof, which is identical to the proof of ownership of assets contained in the Anti-Corruption Law. In the future, it is necessary to equalise the reversal of the burden of proof that should be carried out by the owner of the asset to facilitate the proof process and assist the legal apparatus.

The Application Path of the Rule of Presumption of Evidence in Maritime Administrative Cases

Article 35 of the Coast Guard Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates the rules for presumption of evidence in handling maritime administrative cases, which is a clear legal provision for the reversal of the burden of proof. The parties involved need to bear the complete burden of proof. In the specific application of administrative cases, maritime police agencies should strictly focus on the three basic elements of the presumption basis, basic facts, and illegal facts of the evidence presumption rule. Article 35 of the Maritime Police Law is both a presumption basis and a judicial norm. Maritime police agencies need to bear the burden of proof for the basic facts of the destruction of evidence by the parties. After reaching the standard of proof that eliminates reasonable suspicion, they can infer that the parties have violated the law. At the same time, in order to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests, the parties may refute the basic facts claimed by the maritime police agency or prove that the presumed facts of the maritime police agency are incorrect, but they do not demand a higher standard of proof for the basic facts than the maritime police agency.

Legal Protection For Syrian Refugees In Jordan

This Study Aims To Clarify The Nature Of The Rights And Guarantees Provided By International Humanitarian Law To Syrian Refugees In Jordan. Study Employed Both The Legal Method And The Case Study Method. The Findings Indicate That Jordan Is Deeply Committed To Covenants Related To Refugee Rights, Particularly The International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights And The International Covenant On Economic, Social, And Cultural Rights. Jordan Has Ratified Most Of The Relevant Covenants And Agreements. Despite Not Being A Signatory To The 1951 Refugee Convention, Jordan Has Approached The Issue Of Syrian Refugees With A High Level Of Humanitarianism. The Jordanian Government Refers To Syrian Refugees As "Guests" Rather Than Refugees. The Study Recommends The Development Of A Clear And Specific National Strategy For Dealing With Refugees, Particularly If The Crisis Persists For Many Years. Additionally, It Emphasizes The Importance Of Considering The Unique Circumstances Of Asylum Seekers, Such As The Burden Of Proof And Their Psychological Condition.

On Procedural Safeguards of the Rights of the Accused and Suspect in Termination of Criminal Prosecution on Non-Rehabilitating Grounds

The institute of termination of criminal cases (criminal prosecution) on non-rehabilitating grounds has long raised questions in the theory of criminal procedure regarding its legitimacy. Many authors see a significant logical contradiction between this institute and the principle of presumption of innocence, which is essential for protecting human rights. However, this issue cannot be resolved by declaring the question of guilt in cases terminated on these grounds as “open”, or by simply replacing the term “finding of guilt” with the term “ascertaining of guilt”. It is proposed to address this issue within the framework of legal interpretation of the concept and essence of presumptions, including the presumption of innocence. By providing that the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty in accordance with the law and established by a court verdict that has entered into legal force, the presumption of innocence applies only to a specific situation where the criminal process ends with a guilty verdict. However, it operates more broadly outside of this situation – as a mechanism for distributing the burden of proof between the parties in the process, which is used only until it is no longer necessary, that is, when the process of proving guilt is not completed by any final decision in the criminal case (not just a guilty verdict), and only until that moment can it be stated that the accused is considered innocent. Among such decisions are procedural decisions to terminate a criminal case (prosecution) on non-rehabilitating grounds, in which the investigator, taking into account the above, ascertain the person’s guilt in committing a crime and informs them of this.

The Distribution of Burden of Proof in Environmental Civil Public Interest Litigation

Environmental problems, in the current society, have attracted the attention and attention of the society and the public. Relevant laws are applied under the research of legislators and the reference of foreign legal experience. With the development of environmental civil public interest litigation, a series of problems have gradually emerged with judicial practice, and the allocation of the burden of proof is somewhat unreasonable. Through to our country and outside the environment of civil public interest litigation laws and regulations, understand the environment of the characteristics of the burden of proof and analysis its can perfect, points out that should distinguish the application of public welfare and private benefit, refining the causal relationship responsibility distribution, improve the system of proof obstruction, environmental damage appraisal system and environmental information disclosure system and other related measures.

Protecting Minority Investors: Issues and Development Prospects under Russian Law

The article considers the protection of minority investors rights in joint-stock companies and limited liability companies under Russian law. Reflecting on the legislation and caselaw, the author states that a minority investor has a sufficient level to safeguard their rights. The author states a high level of guarantees for minority shareholders, however, concludes that the use of judicial remedies in some cases imposes an additional burden of proof on minority shareholders, namely when challenging general meeting resolution or increasing authorized capital of LLC. Plus, within the current regulation the most effective tools are mainly preventive (ex-ante) related to a balance of corporate governance embracing the minority investors interests through the charter and corporate agreement.

Transparent Citizenship: The Racialization of Privacy in Post–World War II Japanese American Fiction

Abstract Written in the wake of the Japanese incarceration and the emergence of new Cold War discourses around race, privacy, and democracy, Hisaye Yamamoto’s and John Okada’s works mark a shift from the specific targeting of Japanese Americans as individuals whose citizenship was contingent upon enforced transparency to the broader suspicion of the more generalized “Oriental” as a figure whose opacity becomes an excuse for racialized surveillance and policing in the name of national security. As formerly interned or imprisoned individuals, Yamamoto’s and Okada’s protagonists begin their stories already understanding the contingency of their right to privacy and the expectations of transparency that attend their reentry into the mainstream of US society. This article argues that Yamamoto’s and Okada’s depictions of this transparent citizenship not only critique the limitations and burdens of proof that it places on racialized (and otherwise minoritized) individuals, but also articulate ways to think differently about citizenship itself. What if US citizenship were understood as a formation that did not fetishize the role of individual agency in the process of self-determination? What if the goal of transparency was not to expose or condemn the individual but to better illuminate the parts that individuals play in the construction of our society, and the complexity of their connections to others? And how might transparent citizenship be reconceptualized to empower, rather than infantilize, citizens vis-à-vis the state, by giving us information we might need to imagine and remake the power dynamics of this relationship?

Tests to determine employer-employee relationships in India: looking towards the future?

ABSTRACT The employer-employee relationship forms the foundation from which a host of social security benefits and labour rights emerge. Workers are traditionally classified as employees hired under a contract of service or independent contractors hired under a contract for service. Over the years, Indian courts have relied on the control, integration, and multi-factor tests to determine the correct nature of employment contracts. This article explores the evolution of these tests and examines whether the burden of proof in determining the existence of employer-employee relationships requires modification. It then dissects the efficacy of the current multi-factor test in emerging platforms and gig economies by looking at the standard form contract signed by a popular food delivery platform with its delivery partners in India. Finally, the article explores the ability of the newly enacted labour codes, particularly the Code on Social Security 2020, to address the classification conundrum and its consistency with precedents.

Fully Verified Instruction Scheduling

CompCert project, the state-of-the-art compiler that achieves the first end-to-end formally verified C compiler, does not support fully verified instruction scheduling. Instead, existing research that works on such topics only implements translation validation. This means they do not have direct formal proof that the scheduling algorithm is correct, but only a posterior validation to check each compiling case. Using such a method, CompCert accepts a valid C program and compiles correctly only when the untrusted scheduler generates a correct result. However, it does not guarantee the complete correctness of the scheduler. It also causes compile-time validation overhead in the view of runtime performance. In this work, we present the first achievement in developing a mechanized library for fully verified instruction scheduling while keeping the proof workload acceptably lightweight. The idea to reduce the proof length is to exploit a simple property that the topological reordering of a topological sorted list is equal to a sequence of swapping adjacent unordered elements. Together with the transitivity of semantic simulation relation, the only burden will become proving the semantic preservation of a transition that only swaps two adjacent independent instructions inside one block. After successfully proving this result, proving the correctness of any new instruction scheduling algorithm only requires proof that it preserved the syntax-level dependence among instructions, instead of reasoning about semantics details every time. We implemented a mechanized library of such methods in the Coq proof assistant based on CompCert's library as a framework and used the list scheduling algorithm as a case study to show the correctness can be formally proved using our theory. We show that with our method that abstracts away the semantics details, it is flexible to implement any scheduler that reorders instructions with little extra proof burden. Our scheduler in the case study also abstracts away the outside scheduling heuristic as a universal parameter so it is flexible to modify without touching any correctness proof.

Cheating the evidence to get to best interest and the presumption of unfitness

AbstractThis article explores our national reactive child protection model which has focused on removing poor people from poor families and has resulted in conflating poverty with neglect. Significant issues of class and race are implicated given dramatic systemic racial and ethnic disparities and questions must be asked whether current practices have done more harm than good. In reviewing this landscape this article is descriptive and prescriptive and calls for adopting proactive public health‐oriented policies which support children and families in their homes and a culture of due process and fairness in juvenile and family court hearings involving children and their families. Dependency or abuse and neglect cases involve state intervention. These are not disputes between private parties where the sole focus is the best interest of the child regarding which guardian to be placed with. Cheating the Evidence warns against diluting the constitutional requirement of proving the lack of parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence by making comparative judgments about placement which are based on often subjective assessments on best interests of the child which are resource based. Given that high percentage of cases involving allegations of neglect versus inflicted abuse these concerns are of paramount importance. There is a need for more rigor in fact‐finding and adherence to constitutionally required burdens of proof. Due process and fairness are best‐served by supporting client‐directed advocacy and greater transparency, including presumptively opening up the doors to closed juvenile and family court hearings as recommended by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges in 2005. Opening the doors is not a binary or either or proposition‐ we can preclude dissemination of records of youth, and protect confidentiality as a growing number of states have done. Transparency includes more than raising the level of practice of lawyers and judges‐ it includes encouraging systemic accountability from child serving agencies and educating the public about the complexities which are related to the birth or cradle to prison pipeline.