Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1617391
 


 



No Plausible Alternative to a Plausible Story of Guilt as the Rule of Decision in Criminal Cases


Ronald J. Allen


Northwestern University Law School

May 28, 2010

PROOF AND STANDARDS OF PROOF IN THE LAW, Juan Cruz, Larry Laudan, eds., 2010
Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 10-27

Abstract:     
The relative plausibility theory is an explanatory account of juridical proof in Anglo-American court systems. Its central feature is that proof at trial is organized over competing stories advanced by the litigants, and that decision in civil cases is for the more plausible of the stories, or the more plausible of the set of stories, advanced by the parties as explanations of what occurred. If the fact finders construct their own explanation of what occurred, which is possible, nonetheless the explanation will be fashioned in light of the competing explanations offered by the parties, and essentially by definition will be the most plausible of the accounts considered by the fact finder. In criminal cases, fact finders find guilt if there is a plausible story of guilt and no plausible story of innocence; otherwise, they find innocence. The relative plausibility theory is an empirical rather than an evaluative account, and it is offered as an explanation of certain features of Anglo-American trials. Furthermore, it neither rests on nor entails any essentialist claims about the nature of law or reason. Both may be highly contingent, radically unstable, extremely mutable, and so on, without any effect on the soundness of the relative plausibility theory as an explanation of the present status of proof rules in, and the structure of, Anglo-American trials. Certain features of the relative plausibility theory are logical, however, suggesting some limits on the mutability of proof rules, and suggesting possible grounds for generalizing conclusions about systems of litigation designed to achieve accurate outcomes. Similarly, certain conceptions of rationality integral to the theory are probably common across western cultures, and perhaps across all human cultures, thus offering yet another universalizing tendency. Still, the local nature of the theory should be kept in mind, and perhaps those from other legal traditions can draw contrasts and comparisons between the Anglo-American approach and their own. This paper discusses these matters and then extends the relative plausibility theory to criminal cases.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 14

Keywords: evidence, proof, plausibility, probability, burdens of persuasion, burdens of proof, epistemology

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: May 28, 2010 ; Last revised: July 3, 2010

Suggested Citation

Allen, Ronald J., No Plausible Alternative to a Plausible Story of Guilt as the Rule of Decision in Criminal Cases (May 28, 2010). PROOF AND STANDARDS OF PROOF IN THE LAW, Juan Cruz, Larry Laudan, eds., 2010; Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 10-27. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1617391

Contact Information

Ronald Jay Allen (Contact Author)
Northwestern University Law School ( email )
375 E. Chicago Ave
Unit 1505
Chicago, IL 60611
United States
312-503-8372 (Phone)
312-503-2035 (Fax)

Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 715
Downloads: 126
Download Rank: 127,277

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.437 seconds