IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijpubp/v12y2016i3-4-5-6p115-129.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From rational to more rational standards of proof

Author

Listed:
  • Mirko PeÄ ariÄ
  • Tatjana Kozjek

Abstract

Standards of proof and their application in law have been studied for centuries, but the legal profession still uses them primarily in relation to such indeterminate legal notions as common sense and intuition, while failing to develop new methods for a more objective assessment of these standards. This paper strives to cast a new light upon these standards by exploiting two methods developed in psychology and mathematics. Through the visual presentation of these two methods it becomes clear that every decision has four possible outcomes according to different cues and weights that could change in the face of new evidence. There is a difference between the intuitive use of standards of proof and their use in conjunction with the application of some developed mathematical or statistical methods. This gap could be filled with Bayes theorem that describes the probability of an event, based on conditions that might be (or might not be) related to that event.

Suggested Citation

  • Mirko PeÄ ariÄ & Tatjana Kozjek, 2016. "From rational to more rational standards of proof," International Journal of Public Policy, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 12(3/4/5/6), pages 115-129.
    • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijpubp:v:12:y:2016:i:3/4/5/6:p:115-129
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=79729
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ids:ijpubp:v:12:y:2016:i:3/4/5/6:p:115-129. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=97 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.