Proof Of Guilt Research Articles

Judging Beyond Any Reasonable Doubt

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?

Reasonable Doubt, Robust Evidential Probability and the Unknown

Most legal evidence scholars agree that proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt requires the belief that the defendant probably committed the alleged acts. However, they also agree that this is not a sufficient condition, as this belief may be unreasonable. I focus on two popular proposals for additional conditions: (i) that the degree of belief should be robust and (ii) that it should be reasonable given the available evidence (should be an evidential probability). Both criteria face difficulties regarding their meaning and utility. I propose an interpretation which overcomes these difficulties and which combines the two conditions into a single criterion on which both conditions are about the possibility of overlooked, exculpatory information. Proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt requires that we are sufficiently certain that we did not miss such information for the sake of achieving accurate beliefs and a just error distribution. How certain we can be that we did not miss anything relevant depends on our higher-order evidence. One important type of higher-order evidence is whether the hypotheses under consideration are sufficiently detailed. This point leads to a novel way of combining the Bayesian and explanation-based accounts of rational legal proof.

On the issue of the principle of the presumption of innocence in disciplinary proceedings

The article is devoted to a detailed analysis of national practice of disciplinary proceedings against judges, prosecutors and lawyers, as well as the legal positions of higher courts on the fact of the presence or absence of the principle of presumption of innocence in this category of proceedings. Particular attention is paid to the study of international law and thematic case law of the European Court of Human Rights, which highlights the distinction between criminal and disciplinary proceedings on certain characteristics and features of the principle of proof of guilt in each of them. The article formulates a claim conclusion about the need to rethink the essence of disciplinary proceedings in national law and to extend the basic principles of justice (in particular, criminal) to its sphere.The practice of prosecuting lawyers for disciplinary misconduct can serve as an example of a diametrically opposed approach to understanding the nature of disciplinary proceedings. Іn this case such features of justice (criminal and disciplinary proceedings) as competition, equality of the parties before the law and the court, proving the guilt of a person “beyond a reasonable doubt”, objectivity, justice and others are clearly demonstrated. Therefore, establishing the absence of the principle of presumption of innocence against judges and prosecutors as representatives of public authorities can be regarded not only as a manifestation of their discrimination in relevant disciplinary proceedings, but also as a violation of fundamental principles and constitutional rights of the person in the process of bringing them to this type of justice.

Classifying Actions in Sentencing Based on the Classifying Criterion “Repeated”: Correlation between Criminal Procedural and Criminal Law Aspects

Presently, different judicial divisions of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court offer varying legal conclusions concerning the possibility to classify the actions of a person when sentencing based on the criterion of classification “repeated” varies. This conclusion follows from the analysis of the judicial Decree as of December 11, 2019 (Proceeding No. 51-4204 км 19, Сase No. 274/2956/17) of the Third judicial division of the Criminal Cassation Court, the Decree of the First judicial division of the Cassation Criminal Court as of July 10, 2018 (Proceeding No. 51-2475 км 18, Case No. 545/3663/16-к), and of the Decree as of February 27, 2019 (Proceeding No. 51-5205 км 18, Case No. 695/136/17) of the Second judicial division of the Criminal Cassation Court.Due to such a state of affairs, the already amalgamated division of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court was making its own decision in Case No. 591/4366/18 (Proceeding No. 51-1122 кмо 20) on September 14, 2020. Yet, my opinion is that not all arguments and statements of facts provided in this decree can be agreed on without questions.In the process of the research, it was proved that the situation of the judge’s practicing their discretion powers concerning merging criminal proceedings into one proceeding (according to the requirements of Article 334 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine) is the only exceptional situation that provides for, in absence of the court’s guilty verdict in “the first criminal proceeding,” which for the legal classification of the repeated offence must take a legal effect, using the criterion of classifying the actions of the accused as “repeated” in the “next criminal proceeding.” Otherwise, we should be discussing violation of the constitutional foundation of presumption of innocence in the criminal proceeding and a securing proof of guilt.

Limits of proof in criminal proceedings

Problem setting. Proving in criminal proceedings is evidence collection and research activity of special subjects of criminal proceedings. The specific purpose of prooving is to obtain knowledge that is close to reality. To achieve this purpose, the theory of criminal procedure operates with the concept of “limits of proof”. In view of the above, it is important to study this phenomenon, because, firstly, there is no legislative regulation, and secondly, there is no unity in the theory of criminal procedure on this issue. Target research. The aim of the work is to define the concept of the limits of proof; to find out the moment of reaching the limits of proof and cases of narrowing and expanding the limits of proof; to analyze case law on this issue. Analysis of recent research and publication. The question of determining the limits of proof, their relationship with the subject of prooving has been the subject of scientific research. In particular, the works of such researchers in the field of criminal procedure as A.R. Belkin, V.V. Vapnarchuk, G.F. Gorsky, Yu.M. Groshev, V.S. Zelenetsky, E.G. Kovalenko, L.D. Kokorev, R.V. Kostenko, R.D. Rakhunov, В.В. Rozhnov, V.G. Tanasovich, F.N. Fatkullin, A.A. Khmirov deserve attention. Article’s main body. The article discusses the concept and significance of the limits of proof in criminal proceedings, analyzes the differences between them and other procedural categories, and analyzes doctrinal developments regarding the criteria for reaching boundaries and judicial practice in cases of expanding or narrowing the limits of proof. Conclusions and prospect of development. Thus, the study allows us to state that the concept of the limits of proof in criminal proceedings is multifaceted and important because it aims to achieve fair trial. The limits of proof are individual for each specific criminal proceeding, and an important criterion for determining it is the standard of proof of guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt”. That is why the future study of this phenomenon in criminal proceedings becomes relevant due to the need to bring national criminal proceedings closer to European standards of justice.

Análisis de los tipos penales y su importancia para determinar responsabilidad penal

Recibido: 28 de abril de 2019Aprobado: 25 de mayo de 2019Se realiza una revisión sobre los tipos penales y su importancia para determinar responsabilidad penal, se tiene que los tipos penales en el Ecuador se circunscriben según su estructura a delitos contra los derechos de la libertad, delitos contra el derecho del buen vivir, delitos contra el ambiente y la naturaleza o Pacha Mama, delitos contra la responsabilidad ciudadana, delitos contra la estructura del estado constitucional, delitos de terrorismo e infracciones de tránsito. La responsabilidad penal se determina en comprobación de la culpabilidad, nunca en presunción, lo cual se sustenta en el sistema finalista del delito vigente en el Ecuador.

El testimonio único de la víctima en el proceso penal desde la perspectiva de género

<p>El autor de este trabajo analiza qué puede aportar la perspectiva de género en el proceso penal en los supuestos de declaración de la víctima como prueba única. Alcanza la conclusión de que en la fase de enjuiciamiento su valor epistémico, suministrando nuevas máximas de la experiencia que permiten valorar las pruebas sin prejuicios, no puede subsanar la insuficiencia de un medio probatorio sobre cuya base, cuando no se encuentra corroborado, no puede entenderse válidamente desvirtuada la presunción de inocencia. No obstante lo cual, destaca que, en estos casos, en la fase investigativa la perspectiva de género adquiere una notable utilidad heurística, tanto para construir adecuadamente las hipótesis inculpatorias como para buscar otras fuentes que sirvan para corroborar el testimonio en el futuro juicio oral. </p>

Осетино-ингушский смешанный суд присяжных: институционализация народного правосудия в политико-правовом пространстве Российской империи

The article analyzes the features of the institutionalization of the national justice of Ossetians and Ingush in the conditions of their incorporation into the political and legal space of the Russian Empire on the example of a mixed jury, which existed in 1908-1910. The place of a mixed jury trial in the judicial system of the Terek region in the early 20 th century, in which both formal (state) and informal (people’s) institutions functioned, is considered. Such traditional institutions of socio-normative culture of the Ossetians and the Ingush applied in judicial practice, as compensation for the murder (“payment for blood”), infliction of wounds and injuries, theft, are described. Mutual responsibility as the main measure of responsibility for violation of the principles of social justice, as well as the oath and testimony of witnesses as a form of proof of guilt / innocence of the defendant are analysed in details. The principles of formation and replenishment of people’s cash registers, from which material compensation was paid to the injured party by the decision of the mixed court, were studied. It is concluded that the reception of the customs and traditions of Ossetians and Ingush by consolidating their people’s will in the Russian legal acts regulating the activities of the mixed court, retained the functional importance of national justice and laid the foundation for the formation of the subsequent Russian civil consciousness.

О бремени доказывания вины по делу об административном правонарушении

The article analyzes the relations in the sphere of evidence and proof of guilt in respect of which the administrative process is underway. Attention is paid to the collection of evidences from sources provided by law, the assessment of the evidences collected, questions of application of the presumption of innocence and the presumption of guilt. One of the most important aspects that require an answer is: who bears the burden of proof. Presumption is an assumption recognized as valid until the contrary is proved. Guilt is a mandatory feature of any administrative offense. We analyze the current legislation and practice, including the context of a person’s right not to incriminate themselves, relatives and members of his family. The situation associated with the violation of the rules of stop rules and parking of the vehicle, as well as other traffic rules is considered. Based on the need to balance public and private interests, it is underlined that the law enforcement agencies’ authorized officers have all legal grounds, taken into consideration the principle of unavoidability of punishment (penalty), to hold a vehicle owner administratively liable if the owner does not provide with the information about whom he (she) has passed his (her) car that turned out to be parked in the wrong place. Attention is paid to the position of the Constitutional Court expressed in one of its definitions referring to the presumption of innocence. The Constitutional Court noted that not only the indicated presumption is important, but also the principle of inevitability of punishment, protection of the foundations of the constitutional system, morality, health, rights and freedoms of others, national defense and state security are necessary. Suggestions have been made for further improvement of law enforcement.

Memory Errors in Alibi Generation: How an Alibi Can Turn Against Us.

Alibis play a critical role in the criminal justice system. Yet research on the process of alibi generation and evaluation is still nascent. Indeed, similar to other widely investigated psychological phenomena in the legal system - such as false confessions, historical claims of abuse, and eyewitness memory - the basic assumptions underlying alibi generation and evaluation require closer empirical scrutiny. To date, the majority of alibi research investigates the social psychological aspects of the process. We argue that applying our understanding of basic human memory is critical to a complete understanding of the alibi process. Specifically, we challenge the use of alibi inconsistency as an indication of guilt by outlining the "cascading effects" that can put innocents at risk for conviction. We discuss how normal encoding and storage processes can pose problems at retrieval, particularly for innocent suspects that can result in alibi inconsistencies over time. Those inconsistencies are typically misunderstood as intentional deception, first by law enforcement, affecting the investigation, then by prosecutors affecting prosecution decisions, and finally by juries, ultimately affecting guilt judgments. Put differently, despite the universal nature of memory inconsistencies, a single error can produce a cascading effect, rendering an innocent individual's alibi, ironically, proof of guilt. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Obituary - In Memoriam Per Brandtzaeg.

Obituary - In Memoriam Per Brandtzaeg.

Statements Against Penal Interest, Fed.R.Evid. 804(B)(3): Corroboration, Confrontation Clause; Bruton Does it Survive Crawford?

Statements Against Penal Interest, Fed.R.Evid. 804(B)(3): Corroboration, Confrontation Clause; Bruton Does it Survive Crawford?

Book Review: Cairns, Proof of Guilt: Barbara Graham and the Politics of Executing Women in America, by Heather Fryer

Book Review: Cairns, Proof of Guilt: Barbara Graham and the Politics of Executing Women in America, by Heather Fryer

Bokolo v S 2014 (1)sacr 66 (sca): The practicality of challenging dna evidence in court

The techniques used in DNA profiling are well established and scientifically validated. The scientific validity of DNA evidence can, however, be so persuasive that such evidence risks being reduced to proof of guilt or innocence. Thus, the incorrect use of DNA evidence could lead to a miscarriage of justice where the innocent are convicted and the guilty are acquitted. Drawing from the Supreme Court of Appeal decision in Bokolo v S (Bokolo case), this case note discusses how DNA evidence can be placed in its proper forensic context. The article sets out the ideal role of expert witnesses, the role of opposing or neutral experts, and the active role of judicial officers in evaluating DNA evidence.

Proof of Guilt: Barbara Graham and the Politics of Executing Women in America. By Kathleen A. Cairns . ( Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press , 2013 . xxii + 204 pp. Illustrations, notes, bibliography. $29.95, CAN$34.50, £19.99 .)

<b><i>Proof of Guilt: Barbara Graham and the Politics of Executing Women in America</i></b>. By Kathleen A. Cairns . ( Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press , 2013 . xxii + 204 pp. Illustrations, notes, bibliography. $29.95, CAN$34.50, £19.99 .)

Proof of Guilt: Barbara Graham and the Politics of Executing Women in America by Kathleen A. Cairns (review)

Proof of Guilt: Barbara Graham and the Politics of Executing Women in America by Kathleen A. Cairns (review)

The Epiphany Approach to Habeas Corpus During the Military Commissions Circus

With the recent hunger strikes by prisoners at Guantanamo Bay that have captured global attention, in April 2013, President Obama vowed to eliminate the indeterminate detention facility and ostensibly the extra-judicial tribunal system that were initiated during the Bush Administration. It all began pursuant to Congress’s Authorization for Military Force that empowered the President to respond to individuals, groups, and states with a connection to 9/11, the Executive assumed carte blanche for a detention system that whittled down thousands of militant-detainees inside Afghanistan to several hundred “worst of the worst” who were transported across the Atlantic Ocean to a makeshift prison at the U.S. military base on Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a location with an ambiguous legal status. The sweeping Commander in Chief authority commingled detainees who should have had distinct classifications under international law, resulted in edicts that directed coercive interrogation methods to garner “evidence,” imposed prolonged detention without explanation or proof of guilt, denied individual liberty and human rights protections to foreigners that would have been afforded to nationals, downplayed torture and Geneva Convention violations as unintended incidentals to mandatory programs that would preempt security threats, and exploited rhetorical discourse of fear to justify the system. However, after five years of indefinite detentions without clear cause, the Supreme Court held that the President did not possess the constitutional authority to unilaterally constitute the tribunals. After the tribunals began to regularly try suspects without interruption, scholars and some attorneys and military officers involved in the secretive tribunal process, condemned the awry procedures and evidentiary rules that guaranteed guilt, and even went so far as to deem them “kangaroo courts.” With only six defendants convicted in the military commissions system through March 2013, this article attributes the distance between public perception and successful convictions to the Executive’s ability to shepherd discourse by casting unchallenged assumptions of pervasive peril, which abets an unchecked power and dodges scrutiny with national security prerogatives. The system upended civilized legal procedures and human rights for over a decade. Reactive common law courts struggled to check the system, but could only gradually rebuild human rights protections closer to the point of origin by periodically visiting detainee appeals. Do false perceptions about the level of peril indirectly initiate a process to deny habeas corpus?

La dosis de prueba: entre el common law y el civil law

La decisión judicial se basa en un nivel de suficiencia probatoria (dosis de prueba). En los países anglosajones, se utilizan dos estándares de prueba. Por una parte, el beyond any reasonable doubt, basado en el principio de que es preferible la absolución de muchos culpables a la condena de un solo inocente, utilizado bajo la formulación del beyond any reasonable doubt o satisfied so that you feel sure, destacándose en la práctica de los tribunales que no es tan importante la concreta fórmula utilizada cuanto el grado de convicción del jurado sobre la culpabilidad del acusado. Por otra parte, el preponderance of evidence, también conocido como balance of probabilities o preponderance of evidence, propio del proceso civil, y que puede enunciarse afirmando que ante varias hipótesis sobre la existencia de un hecho deberá escogerse aquella que tenga el grado más elevado de confirmación lógica (regla más probable que no). En los países del civil law no existe un equivalente a los estándares de prueba, y se utilizan reglas de valoración de la prueba, destacando entre ellas las reglas de la sana crítica, entendido como sistema de libre valoración motivado. También se han efectuado construcciones jurisprudenciales, como en el ámbito penal, la mínima actividad probatoria y como el coeficiente de elasticidad de la prueba. Los estándares de prueba y las reglas de valoración de la prueba deben concebirse como mecanismos que permiten objetivar y racionalizar el proceso autónomo y subjetivo de formación de la convicción judicial.

(Un)reasonable Doubt: A "Narrative Immunity" for Footballers against Sexual Assault Allegations

(Un)reasonable Doubt: A "Narrative Immunity" for Footballers against Sexual Assault Allegations

Cases and Controversies: Pregnancy as Proof of Guilt Under Pakistan's Hudood Laws

Pakistan's Hudood (Islamic criminal) laws have been a source of controversy since their promulgation by the military regime of General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq in 1979. For their supporters, these laws are a welcome step towards the enforcement of shari'ah (Islamic law) and, as such, represent a logical and inevitable progression of those historic processes that had led to the creation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. To their opponents, these laws represent gross violations of fundamental human rights and constitutional norms designed to uphold democratic participation in lawmaking and the equality of citizens irrespective of their religion or gender. This paper will survey the contours of the controversies surrounding the Hudood laws, and seek to broaden the horizons of the debate surrounding these laws by incorporating an “Islamic critique” of these laws that has generally been lacking in the discourse. More importantly, the paper seeks to analyze the role that the Federal Shariat Court has played in substantively shaping the law, through a chronological analysis of the Court's decisions on the most contentious aspects of the Hudood laws: the conviction of rape victims for zina (consensual adultery/fornication) regarding as proof the pregnancy caused by the rape. This analysis will indicate the strengths of the Islamic critique and propose reforms that may offer a viable avenue for alleviating the hardships perpetrated in the application of the Hudood laws.