The BARD Standard
From Historical Sources to New Challenges. A Comment on Della Torre
##submission.downloads##
Abstract
The work comments on Della Torre’s essay about the evolution of the reasonable doubt criminal standard of proof. By going through the main claims of the essay, which is both historical and theoretical, the work contends that the essay clarifies (and hopefully soothes) some badly framed discussions on that standard, furthermore that it provides valuable reasons to prefer the reasonable doubt formulation over some revolutionary ambitions, and that it sheds light on the reasons for taking the standard not only in the strict reading of an evidentiary threshold but also in the broad one of a method or even a principle of criminal justice. Finally, the work suggests some refinements to Della Torre’s arguments and addresses the tension between the reasonable doubt safeguards and the efficiency of the criminal justice system.
Parole chiave
Criminal Justice, Evidence, Reasonable Doubt, Standards of ProofDownloads
Riferimenti bibliografici
Allen, R. and Pardo, M. (2021). Inference to the Best Explanation, Relative Plausibility, and Probability. In C. Dahlman, A. Stein and G. Tuzet (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Evidence Law. (p. 201-214). Oxford University Press.
Caprioli, F. (2009). L’accertamento della responsabilità penale “oltre ogni ragionevole dubbio”. Rivista Italiana di Diritto e Procedura Penale, 52(1), p. 51-92.
Carlizzi, G. (2018). Libero convincimento e ragionevole dubbio nel processo penale. Storia prassi teoria. Bonomo.
Conti, C. (2020). Il BARD paradigma di metodo: legalizzare il convincimento senza riduzionismi aritmetici. Diritto penale e processo, 6/2020, p. 829-842.
Della Torre, J. (2019). La giustizia penale negoziata in Europa. Miti, realtà e prospettive. Wolters Kluwer-Cedam.
Della Torre, J. (2025). Taking the Evolution of the Standard of Proof for a Criminal Conviction Seriously. Quaestio Facti. International Journal on Evidential Legal Reasoning, 8, p. 155-216. https://doi.org/10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i8.23112
Ferrer Beltrán, J. (2021). Prueba sin convicción. Estándares de prueba y debito proceso. Marcial Pons.
Gialuz, M. and Della Torre, J. (2022). Giustizia per nessuno. L’inefficienza del sistema penale italiano tra crisi cronica e riforma Cartabia. Giappichelli.
Laudan, L. (2003). Is Reasonable Doubt Reasonable? Legal Theory, 9(4), p. 295-331. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325203000132
Laudan, L. (2006). Truth, Error, and Criminal Law. An Essay in Legal Epistemology. Cambridge University Press.
Redmayne, M. (1999). Standards of Proof in Civil Litigation. The Modern Law Review, 62(2), p. 167-195. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1097022.pdf
Roberts, P. (2022). Roberts & Zuckerman’s Criminal Evidence (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Tuzet, G. (2021). Evidence Assessment and Standards of Proof: A Messy Issue. Quaestio Facti. International Journal on Evidential Legal Reasoning, 2, p. 87-114. https://doi.org/10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i2.22480
Tuzet, G. (2023). Certainty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. A Pragmatist Understanding of the Criminal Standard of Proof. Contemporary Pragmatism, 20(4), p. 398-423. https://brill.com/view/journals/copr/20/4/article-p398_005.pdf?srsltid=AfmBOopfjf-cMQeT3NNFdEh1dI5RaZj7ahLhDYAozaB3kOcUdw-CNgAx
Códe de procédure pénale. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/texte_lc/LEGITEXT000006071154/
DOI
https://doi.org/10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i9.23149Pubblicato
Come citare
Fascicolo
Sezione
Licenza
Copyright (c) 2025 Giovanni Tuzet
TQuesto lavoro è fornito con la licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione 4.0 Internazionale.