Law Commons^™

Optimal Standards Of Proof In Antitrust, Murat C. Mungan, Joshua Wright

Faculty Scholarship

Economic analyses of antitrust institutions have thus far focused predominantly on optimal penalties and the design of substantive legal rules, and have largely ignored the standard of proof used in trials as a policy tool in shaping behavior. This neglected tool can play a unique role in the antitrust context, where a given firm may have the choice to engage in exceptional anticompetitive or procompetitive behavior, or simply follow more conventional business practices. The standard of proof used in determining the legality of a firm’s conduct affects not only whether the firm chooses to engage in pro- versus anticompetitive behavior, …

Saidi Banda V The People Scz Appeal No. 114 Of 2015), Mwaka Chizinga

SAIPAR Case Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process In Prison Disciplinary Hearings: How The “Some Evidence” Standard Of Proof Violates The Constitution, Emily Parker

Washington Law Review

Prison disciplinary hearings have wide-reaching impacts on an incarcerated individual’s liberty. A sanction following a guilty finding is a consequence that stems from hearings and goes beyond mere punishment. Guilty findings for serious infractions, like a positive result on a drug test, can often result in a substantial increase in prison time. Before the government deprives an incarcerated individual of their liberty interest in a shorter sentence, it must provide minimum due process. However, an individual can be found guilty of serious infractions in Washington State prison disciplinary hearings under the “some evidence” standard of proof—a standard that allows for …

Death Of Paradox: The Killer Logic Beneath The Standards Of Proof, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The prevailing but contested view of proof standards is that factfinders should determine facts by probabilistic reasoning. Given imperfect evidence, they should ask themselves what they think the chances are that the burdened party would be right if the truth were to become known; they then compare those chances to the applicable standard of proof.

I contend that for understanding the standards of proof, the modern versions of logic — in particular, fuzzy logic and belief functions — work better than classical probability. This modern logic suggests that factfinders view evidence of an imprecisely perceived and described reality to form …

Introductory Note For The International Criminal Court, Susana Sacouto

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

INTRODUCTION: On February 3, 2010, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued its judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against the decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) denying his application for an arrest warrant against President of Sudan, Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir in relation to the crime of genocide. Holding that the PTC had applied an erroneous standard of proof, the Appeals Chamber reversed the PTC's decision and directed it to reconsider whether the warrant should be issued in light of the Appeals Chamber's discussion of the appropriate standard of proof.

Introduction To Panel On Gender Crimes At The International Level Proceedings Of The Third International Humanitarian Law Dialogs, Susana Sacouto

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

INTRODUCTION: On February 3, 2010, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued its judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against the decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) denying his application for an arrest warrant against President of Sudan, Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir in relation to the crime of genocide. Holding that the PTC had applied an erroneous standard of proof, the Appeals Chamber reversed the PTC's decision and directed it to reconsider whether the warrant should be issued in light of the Appeals Chamber's discussion of the appropriate standard of proof.

Introductory Note For The International Criminal Court.Pdf, Susana L. Sacouto

Susana L. SáCouto

Introduction To Panel On Gender Crimes At The International Level Proceedings Of The Third International Humanitarian Law Dialogs.Pdf, Susana L. Sacouto

Susana L. SáCouto

Standards Of Persuasion And The Distinction Between Fact And Law, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

The invitation to respond in these pages to Gary Lawson's very interesting article, Proving the Law, was tempting enough. But what made it irresistible was Professor Lawson's comment that he is "addressing, with a brevity that borders on the irresponsible, subjects well beyond [his] depth." Now, that's the kind of debate I really like. Let me jump right in. A principal question raised by Lawson, which I find quite interesting, may be phrased in general, and purposefully ambiguous, terms as follows: Before an actor treats a proposition as a valid2 proposition of law, what standard of persuasion should that proposition …

Allen V. The United States Of America: The “Substantial” Connection Between Nuclear Fallout And Cancer, Daniel Swartzman, Tom Christoffel

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.