Offence Definitions, Conclusive Presumptions, and Slot Machines
University of Saskatchewan - College of Law
January 20, 2010
Osgoode Hall Law Journal, Vol. 48, p.145, 2010
Canadian evidence scholars frequently claim that conclusive presumptions are nothing more than substantive offence definitions. This position reflects a persistent confusion, not about the function of legal presumptions in the law of evidence, but about the function of offence definitions beyond the law of evidence. Offence definitions, unlike conclusive presumptions, serve the normative function of defining wrongful conduct for citizens. This commentary argues that the language of conclusive presumptions allows us to distinguish the gravamen of a criminal offence from a means of facilitating proof of that wrong. It is, to that extent, worth preserving the distinction between conclusive presumptions and offence definitions.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 29
Keywords: Evidence law, presumptions, Dan-Cohen, HartAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: January 22, 2012 ; Last revised: February 5, 2012
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.422 seconds