What Does It Mean to be "Plausible"?
Descargas
Resumen
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.
Palabras clave
plausibility, probability, Evidence, AmbiguityCitas
Aitken, C. and Taroni, F. (2004). Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence (2nd ed.). Wiley.
Allen, R. (1991). The Nature of Juridical Proof. Cardozo Law Review, 13, 373-422.
Allen, R. (2010). No Plausible Alternative to a Plausible Story of Guilt as the Rule of Decision in Criminal Cases”. In J. Cruz and L. Laudan (Eds.), Proof and Standards of Proof in the Law, Northwestern Public Law Research Paper, no. 10-27.
Allen, R. (2017). The Nature of Juridical Proof – Probability as a Tool in Plausible Reasoning. International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 21, 133-142.
Allen, R. (2022) New Directions for Evidence Science, Complex Adaptive Systems, and a Possible Unprovable Hypothesis about Human Flourishing. In J. Ferrer Beltrán and C. Vázquez (Eds.), Evidential Legal Reasoning. Cambridge University Press.
Allen, R. and Carriquiry, A. (1997). Factual Ambiguity and a Theory of Evidence Reconsidered – A Dialogue Between a Statistician and a Law Professor. Israel Law Review, 31, 464-505.
Allen, R. and Pardo, M. (2019a). Relative Plausibility and its Critics. International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 23, 5-59.
Allen, R. and Pardo, M. (2019b). Clarifying Relative Plausibility – A Rejoinder. International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 23, 205-217.
Bex, F. and Walton, D. (2012). Burdens and Standards of Proof for Inference to the Best Explanation – Three Case Studies. Law, Probability and Risk, 11, 113-133.
Cohen, L.J. (1986). The Role of Evidential Weight in Criminal Proof. Boston University Law Review, 66, 635-650.
Dahlman, C. and Nordgaard, A. (2022). Information Economics in the Criminal Standard of Proof. Law, Probability & Risk, 21, 137-162.
Dahlman, C. (2024). The Virtue of Being Disagreeable. In E. Feteris et al. (Eds.), Legal Argumentation – Reasoned Dissensus and Common Ground. Boom
van Eemeren, F. and Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies – A Pragma-Dialectic Perspective. Hillsdale.
Fenton, N. & Neil, M. (2018). Risk Assessment and Decision Analysis with Bayesian Networks (2nd ed.). Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.
Gelbach, J. (2019). It’s all Relative – Explanationism and Probabilistic Evidence Theory. International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 23, 168-175.
Haack, S. (2014). Evidence Matters – Science, Proof and Truth in the Law. Cambridge University Press.
Hastie, R. (2019). The Case for Relative Plausibility Theory – Promising but Insufficient. International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 23, 134-140.
Jellema, H. (2013). (Im)probable Stories – Combining Bayesian and Explanation-Based Accounts of Rational Criminal Proof. PhD Thesis, University of Groningen.
Josephson, J. (2001). On the Proof Dynamics of Inference to the Best Explanation. Cardozo Law Review, 22, 1621-1644.
Kadane, J. and Schum, D. (1996). A Probabilistic Analysis of the Sacco and Vanzetti Evidence. Wiley.
Kolflaath, E. (2019). Relative Plausibility and a Prescriptive Theory of Evidence Assessment. International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 23, 121-127.
van Koppen, P. (2011) Overtuigend Bewijs – Indammen van Rechterlijke Dwalingen. Nieuw.
Laudan, L. (2007). Strange Bedfellows – Inference to the Best Explanation and the Criminal Standard of Proof. International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 11, 292-306.
Lombardi, D., Nussbaum, E. and Sinatra, G. (2016). Plausibility Judgements in Conceptual Change and Epistemic Cognition. Educational Psychologist, 51, 35-56.
Mackor, A. R. (2023). The Plausible, the Possible and the Probable – Filosofische kanttekeningen bij aannemelijkheid in relatie tot mogelijkheid en waarschijnlijkheid. Rechtsgeleerd Magazijn Themis, 5, 291-299.
Mackor, A. R. & van Koppen, P. (2021). The Scenario Theory about Evidence in Criminal Law, In C. Dahlman et al. (Eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Evidence Law. Oxford University Press.
Meester, R. and Slooten, K. (2021) Probability and Forensic Evidence. Cambridge University Press.
Naess, A. (1966). Communication and Argument. Universitetsforlaget.
Nance, D. (2016). The Burdens of Proof – Discriminatory Power, Weight of Evidence, and the Tenacity of Belief. Cambridge University Press.
Pardo, M. and Allen, R. (2008). Juridical Proof and the Best Explanation. Law and Philosophy, 27, 223-268.
Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson.
Rescher, N. (1976). Plausible Reasoning – An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Plausibilistic Inference. Van Gorcum.
Robertson, B., Vignaux, G. and Berger, C. (2016). Interpreting Evidence (2nd ed.). Wiley.
Salmon, W. (1970). Bayes’s Theorem and the History of Science. In R. Stuewer (Ed.), Historical and Philosophical Perspectives of Science. University of Minnesota Press.
Schwartz, D. and Sober, E. (2019). What is Relative Plausibility? International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 23, 198-204.
Stein, A. (2011). The Flawed Probabilistic Foundations of Law and Economics. Northwestern University Law Review, 105, 199-260.
Wagenaar, A., van Koppen, P. and Crombag, H. (1993). Anchored Narratives – The Psychology of Criminal Evidence. St Martin's Press.
Walton, D. (2001). Abductive, Presumptive and Plausible Arguments. Informal Logic, 21, 141-169.
Wigmore, J. H. (1904). A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law. Little Brown.
Legislation
Arbetsdomstolen [AD] [Labor Court], 1995-11-15, A-73-1995, AD 137/1995. https://lagen.nu/dom/ad/1995:137
Högsta domstolen [HD] [Supreme Court], 2008-12-18, Ö 1208-06. https://lagen.nu/dom/nja/2008/not/63
DOI
https://doi.org/10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i7.23030Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2024 Christian Dahlman
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.