Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    A floating standard of proof treats accused persons diffe... — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Adopting a floating standard of proof would offend accused persons' right to consistent weighting of moral harm.

    A floating standard of proof treats accused persons differently with respect to evaluating the importance of avoiding moral harm.

    Justice & PunishmentRights & Liberty
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Justice & PunishmentRights & Liberty

    Related

    Accused persons have a right to consistent weighting of the importance of moral ...Adopting a floating standard of proof would offend accused persons' right to con...Different treatment is reflected in different levels of risk of moral harm to wh...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Justice & Punishment
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    This right to consistent weighting stems from their right to equal concern and r...

    Similar

    Adopting a floating standard of proof would offend accused persons' ri...91%Requiring a higher standard of proof for the less serious crime of the...81%Epistemic theories of standards of proof are flawed as applied to actu...81%Legal standards of proof require more than high probability of the def...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: evidence-legal
    View source passageHide passage
    The argument is better interpreted as a normative argument—as advancing the claim about what the law ought to be and not what it is. The standard of proof ought to vary from case to case. But this proposal faces a second objection. For convenience, the objection will be elaborated in the criminal setting; in principle, civil litigants have the same two rights that we shall identify. According to Dworkin (1981), moral harm arises as an objective moral fact when a person is erroneously convicted o

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective