Estándares de prueba para delitos futuros y teoría de la decisión
##submission.downloads##
Abstract
El estándar de prueba para aplicar sanciones penales preventivas es una cuestión abierta en varios sistemas jurídicos. Algunos autores sugieren que podemos responderla utilizando la teoría de la decisión. Desde este enfoque, el estándar de prueba se conceptualiza como un umbral probabilístico: solo se puede imponer una sanción preventiva si es suficientemente probable que una persona cometa un delito en el futuro. Según los teóricos de la decisión, la magnitud de esta probabilidad de un delito futuro puede determinarse mediante un cálculo utilitarista. Sin embargo, un análisis basado en la teoría de la decisión requiere enfrentarse a varias cuestiones difíciles. Este artículo examina dichas cuestiones y explora algunas vías para responderlas. Lo hace considerando un estándar de prueba para una sanción preventiva ficticia y ofreciendo una justificación basada en la teoría de la decisión para dicho estándar.
Parole chiave
prueba jurídicaDownloads
Riferimenti bibliografici
Ashworth, A., Zedner, L., & Tomlin, P. (Eds.). (2013). Prevention and the Limits of the Criminal Law. Oxford University Press.
Bijlsma, J. (2024). Risicostrafrecht en rechtsorde: Kent noodzaak geen recht?. University of Groningen.
Bijlsma, J., & Meynen, G. (2023). Aannemelijkheid van strafuitsluitingsgronden en sanctievoorwaarden. Welke mate van onzekerheid is aanvaardbaar?. Rechtsgeleerd Magazijn Themis, 2023(5), 268-276.
Blackstone, W. (1962). Commentaries on the Laws of England (Vol. 2). Beacon
Carvalho, H. (2017). The preventive turn in criminal law. Oxford University Press.
Cullison, A. D. (1969). Probability analysis of judicial fact-finding: A preliminary outline of the subjective approach. Toledo Law Review, 1: 538–598.
Dahlman, C. (2020). Naked statistical evidence and incentives for lawful conduct. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 24(2), 162-179.
Dahlman, C. (2024). A systematic account of probabilistic fallacies in legal fact-finding. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 28(1), 45-64.
DeKay, M. L. (1996). The difference between Blackstone-like error ratios and probabilistic standards of proof. Law & Social Inquiry, 21(1), 95-132.
Di Bello, M. (2013). Statistics and probability in criminal trials. Stanford University.
Eaglin, J. M. (2017). Constructing recidivism risk. Emory LJ, 67, 60-122.
Günther, M. (2024a). Legal proof should be justified belief of guilt. Legal Theory, 30(3), 129-141.
Günther, M. (2024b). Probability of Guilt. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 54(3), 189-206.
Henderson, L. (2022). Higher‐order evidence and losing one's conviction. Noûs, 56(3), 513-529.
Ho, H. L. (2008). A philosophy of evidence law: Justice in the search for truth. Oxford University Press on Demand.
Janus, E. S., & Meehl, P. E. (1997). Assessing the legal standard for predictions of dangerousness in sex offender commitment proceedings. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3(1), 33-64.
Jellema, H. (2023). (Im) probable stories: combining Bayesian and explanation-based accounts of rational criminal proof. University of Groningen [PhD thesis]
Jellema, H. (2024). Reasonable doubt, robust evidential probability and the unknown. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 18(2), 451-470.
Kagehiro, D. K. (1990). Defining the standard of proof in jury instructions. Psychological Science, 1(3), 194-200.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.
Kaplan, J. (1967). Decision theory and the factfinding process. Stan L. Rev., 20, 1065-1092.
Knight, C. (2023). Reflective Equilibrium, In: Zalta, E.N. & Nodelman, U. (eds.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2025/entries/reflective-equilibrium
Laudan & Saunders (2009). Re-thinking the criminal standard of proof: Seeking consensus about the utilities of trial outcomes. International Commentary on Evidence, 7(2), article 1 (online journal).
Laudan, L. (2006). Truth, error, and criminal law: an essay in legal epistemology. Cambridge University Press.
Laudan, L. (2015). Why Asymmetric Rules of Procedure Make It Impossible to Calculate a Rationally Warranted Standard of Proof. Available at SSRN 2584658.
Lempert, R. O. (1976). Modeling relevance. Mich. L. Rev., 75, 1021-1057.
Lillquist, E. (2002). Recasting reasonable doubt: Decision theory and the virtues of variability. UC Davis L. Rev., 36, 85-197.
Min, B., & Ferris, G. (2020). Regulating Artificial Intelligence for Use in Criminal Justice Systems in the EU. Fair Trials, 2-35.
Monahan, J. (1977). Strategies for an empirical analysis of the prediction of violence in emergency civil commitment. Law and Human Behavior, 1(4), 363-371.
Monahan, J., & Silver, E. (2003). Judicial decision thresholds for violence risk management. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 2(1), 1-6.
Monahan, J., & Wexler, D. B. (1978). A definite maybe: Proof and probability in civil commitment. Law and Human Behavior, 2(1), 37-42.
Morris, N., & Miller, M. (1985). Predictions of dangerousness. Crime and Justice, 6, 1-50.
Morse, S. J. (1982). A preference for liberty: The case against involuntary commitment of the mentally disordered. Calif. L. Rev., 70, 54-106.
Mossman, D. (1995). Dangerousness decisions: An essay on the mathematics of clinical violence prediction and involuntary hospitalization. U. Chi. L. Sch. Roundtable, 2, 95-138.
Mossman, D. (2006). Critique of pure risk assessment or, Kant meets Tarasoff. U. Cin. L. Rev., 75, 523-610.
Mossman, D., & Hart, K. J. (1993). How bad is civil commitment? A study of attitudes toward violence and involuntary hospitalization. The Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 21(2), 181-194.
Nagel, S., Lamm, D., & Neef, M. (1981). Decision theory and juror decision-making. The trial process, 353-386.
Nagel, S., Neef, M., & Schramm, S. S. (1977). Decision Theory and the Pre-Trial Release Decision in Criminal Cases. University of Miami Law Review, 31(5), 1433-1491.
Nance, D. A. (2016). The burdens of proof. Cambridge University Press.
Redmayne, M. (1999). Standards of proof in civil litigation. Mod. L. Rev., 62, 167-195.
Schopp, R. F., & Quattrocchi, M. R. (1995). Predicting the present: Expert testimony and civil commitment. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 13(2), 159-181.
Schopp, R. F. (1996). Communicating risk assessments: Accuracy, efficacy, and responsibility. American Psychologist, 51, 939-944.
Scurich, N. (2015). Criminal justice policy preferences: Blackstone ratios and the veil of ignorance. Stanford Law & Policy Review, 26, 23-35.
Scurich, N. (2016). Structured risk assessment and legal decision-making. Advances in Psychology and Law: Volume 1, 159-183.
Scurich, N. (2018). The case against categorical risk estimates. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 36(5), 554-564.
Scurich, N., & John, R. (2010). The normative threshold for psychiatric civil commitment. Jurimetrics, 425-452.
Scurich, N., & John, R. S. (2011). Constraints on restraints: A signal detection analysis of the use of mechanical restraints on adult psychiatric inpatients. S. Cal. Rev. L. & Soc. Just., 21, 75-107.
Scurich, N., & John, R. S. (2012). Prescriptive approaches to communicating the risk of violence in actuarial risk assessment. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 18(1), 50-78.
Slobogin, C. (1989). The ultimate issue issue. Behav. Sci. & L., 7, 259.
Slobogin, C. (2006). Minding justice: Laws that deprive people with mental disability of life and liberty. Harvard University Press.
Slobogin, C. (2018). Preventive justice: A paradigm in need of testing. Behavioral sciences & the law, 36(4), 391-410.
Slobogin, C. (2021). Just algorithms: Using science to reduce incarceration and inform a jurisprudence of risk. Cambridge University Press.
Stein, A. (2005). Foundations of Evidence Law. Oxford University Press.
Stevenson, M. T., & Mayson, S. G. (2022). Pretrial detention and the value of liberty. Virginia Law Review, 108(3), 709-782.
Stoffelmayr, E., & Diamond, S. S. (2000). The conflict between precision and flexibility in explaining" beyond a reasonable doubt". Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(3), 769-787.
Tadros, V. (2013). Controlling risk. Prevention and the Limits of the Criminal Law, 133-55.
Tillers, P., & Gottfried, J. (2006). A collateral attack on the legal maxim that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is unquantifiable. Law, Probability and Risk, 5, 135–157.
Urbaniak, R. (2018). Narration in judiciary fact-finding: A probabilistic explication. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 1–32.
Van Koppen, P. J. (2008). De beschaving van risicostrafrecht: Tussen goede opsporing en prima gevaarspredictie. Proces, 2008(2), 36-46.
Vars, F. E. (2010). Toward a general theory of standards of proof. Cath. UL Rev., 60, 1-45.
Vars, F. E. (2012). Delineating sexual dangerousness. Hous. L. Rev., 50, 855-898.
Vorms, M., & Hahn, U. (2021). In the space of reasonable doubt. Synthese, 198 (Suppl 15), 3609-3633.
Willems, S., Albers, C., & Smeets, I. (2020). Variability in the interpretation of probability phrases used in Dutch news articles—a risk for miscommunication. Journal of Science Communication, 19(2), A03.
Zagzebski, L. T. (2012). Epistemic authority: A theory of trust, authority, and autonomy in belief. Oxford Uni
DOI
https://doi.org/10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i10.23144Pubblicato
Come citare
Fascicolo
Sezione
Licenza
Copyright (c) 2025 Hylke Jellema
TQuesto lavoro è fornito con la licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione 4.0 Internazionale.