Justifying the Proof Structure of Criminal Trials

International Journal of Evidence & Proof 17 (2012): 323-46

34 Pages Posted: 5 Oct 2013

Date Written: October 4, 2013


During criminal trials, defendants enjoy a presumption of innocence, the burden of proof is on the government, and the standard of proof it must meet — beyond a reasonable doubt — is exacting. This "proof structure" of trials is usually justified with an error distribution rationale. Yet there are well-known difficulties in establishing the optimal ratio of errors of false conviction to errors of false acquittals and with determining whether the proof structure enables us to obtain that ratio over a sufficiently lengthy run of cases. According to an alternative justification of the proof structure, individuals have a second-order moral right to demand rigorous, independent evaluations of the evidence that they have committed crimes before their primary moral rights are curtailed by legal punishment. The proof structure of criminal trials is one way to honor this right. Various objections to this defense of the proof structure are considered.

Keywords: error distribution, legal punishment, reasonable doubt, burden of proof

Suggested Citation

Lippke, Richard, Justifying the Proof Structure of Criminal Trials (October 4, 2013). International Journal of Evidence & Proof 17 (2012): 323-46, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2336048

Richard Lippke (Contact Author)

Indiana University ( email )

Department of Criminal Justice
Bloomington, IN
United States
812-856-6049 (Phone)

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics