Menu Expand
  1. Subjects (Books)
  2. Law
  3. Jurisprudence & general issues
  4. Methods, theory & philosophy of law
  5. Law in Times of Crisis
  6. pp. 317–334

BOOK CHAPTER

Cite BOOK Chapter

Style
Vaki, Y. (2024). 'Condign Punishment Appropriate to the Extent of Proof' In E. Hilgendorf, (Ed.), Law in Times of Crisis (1st ed., pp. 317-334)
Vaki, Yaniv. "Condign Punishment Appropriate to the Extent of Proof". Law in Times of Crisis, edited by Eric Hilgendorf, Duncker & Humblot, 2024, pp. 317-334.
Vaki, Y. (2024): 'Condign Punishment Appropriate to the Extent of Proof', in Hilgendorf, E (ed.). Law in Times of Crisis. Duncker & Humblot, pp. 317-334.
Format
Download

Condign Punishment Appropriate to the Extent of Proof

Vaki, Yaniv

In: Law in Times of Crisis (2024), pp. 317–334

Preview Login to order (PDF)

Additional Information

Chapter Details

Publisher Name
Duncker & Humblot
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-58941-8.2023.317
Language
English
Pages
18

Pricing

Individual
€ 28.00 (incl. local VAT if applicable)

Author Details

Yaniv Vaki

Vaki, Yaniv, Prof. Dr., College of Management Academic Studies, Rishon LeZion, Israel

References

  1. Andreoni, James: Reasonable Doubt and the Optimal Magnitude of Fines: Should the Penalty Fit the Crime, Rand Journal of Economics Vol. 22, 1991, pp. 385–395.  Google Scholar
  2. Beattie, John M.: Crime and the Courts in England 1660–1800, Oxford 1986.  Google Scholar
  3. Beccaria, Cesare: On Crimes and Punishment, first published in 1764 (translated by Paolucci, Henry in 1963).  Google Scholar
  4. Bowers, William J./Sandys, Marla/Steiner, Benjamin D.: Foreclosed Impartiality in Capital Sentencing: Jurors’ Predispositions, Guilt-Trial Experience, and Premature Decision Making, Cornell Law Review Vol. 83, 1998, pp. 1476–1556.  Google Scholar
  5. Bray, Samuel: Not Proven: Introducing a Third Verdict, University of Chicago Law Review Vol. 72, 2005, pp. 1299–1329.  Google Scholar
  6. Brilmayer, Lea: Second-Order Evidence and Bayesian Logic, Boston University Law Review Vol. 66, 1986, pp. 673–692.  Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, Laurence J.: The Role of Evidential Weight in Criminal Proof, Boston University Law Review Vol. 66, 1986, pp. 635–649.  Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, Neil B.: Confidence in Probability: Burdens of Persuasion in a World of Imperfect Knowledge, New York University Law Review Vol. 60, 1985, pp. 385–422.  Google Scholar
  9. Danziger, Yoram/Thimana, Rona: Reexamination of the Majority Decision Rule and a Proposal for Change, The Public Defender Vol. 234, 2016, p. 11 et seq.  Google Scholar
  10. Eisenberg, Theodore/Wells, Martin T.: Deadly Confusion: Juror Instructions in Capital Cases, Cornell Law Review Vol. 79, 1993, pp. 1–17.  Google Scholar
  11. Fisher, Talia: Constitutionalism and the Criminal Law: Rethinking Criminal Trial Bifurcation, The University of Toronto Law Journal Vol. 61 No. 4, 2011, pp. 811–843.  Google Scholar
  12. Fisher, Talia: Probabilistic Punishment, Tel Aviv University Law Review Vol. 32, 2011, pp. 515–582.  Google Scholar
  13. Foucault, Michel: Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, 2nd edition, New York 1995.  Google Scholar
  14. Freedman, Jonathan L.: Penalties and Verdicts: Keeping the Record Straight, Law and Human Behavior Vol. 18, 1994, pp. 699–702.  Google Scholar
  15. Freedman, Jonathan L./Krismer, Kirsten/MacDonald, Jennifer E./Cunningham, John A.: Severity of Penalty, Seriousness of the Charge, and Mock Jurors’ Verdicts, Law and Human Behavior Vol. 18, 1994, pp. 189–202.  Google Scholar
  16. Garvey, Stephen P.: Aggravation and Mitigation in Capital Cases: What Do Jurors Think?, Columbia Law Review Vol. 98 No. 6, 1998, pp. 1538–1576.  Google Scholar
  17. Geimer, William/Amsterdam, Jonathan: Why Jurors Vote Life or Death: Operative Factors in Ten Florida Death Penalty Cases, American Journal of Criminal Law Vol. 15, 1998, pp. 1–54.  Google Scholar
  18. Hastie, Reid: Algebraic Models of Decision Processes, in: Hastie, Reid (ed.), Inside the Juror: The Psychology of Juror Decision Making, Cambridge 1983, pp. 84–115.  Google Scholar
  19. Hastie, Reid: Contents of Jury Deliberation, in: Hastie, Reid/Penrod, Steven D./Pennington, Nancy (eds.), Inside the Jury, Cambridge 1983, pp. 83–98.  Google Scholar
  20. Hay, Douglas: The Criminal Prosecution in England and Its Historians, The Modern Law Review Vol. 47 No. 1, 1984, pp. 1–29.  Google Scholar
  21. Horovitz, Anat: The Emergence of Sentencing Hearings, Punishment and Society Vol. 9, 2007, pp. 271–299.  Google Scholar
  22. Horovitz, Anat: The Judgement Procedure: Deliberative and Evidential Aspects, LLD dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Faculty of Law, 2003.  Google Scholar
  23. Jungman, Elizabeth R.: Beyond All Doubt, Georgetown Law Journal Vol. 91, 2003, pp. 1065–1092.  Google Scholar
  24. Kalvan Jr., Harry/Zeisel, Hans: The American Jury, Boston 1966.  Google Scholar
  25. Kaplan, Martin F./Krupa, Sharon: Severe Penalties Under the Control of Others Can Reduce Guilt Verdicts, Law and Psychology Review Vol. 10, 1986, pp. 1–18.  Google Scholar
  26. Kaye, David H.: Do We Need a Calculus of Weight to Understand Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?, Boston University Law Review Vol. 66, 1986, pp. 657–672.  Google Scholar
  27. Kerr, Norbert L.: Severity of Prescribed Penalty and Mock Jurors’ Verdicts, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol. 36, 1978, pp. 1431–1442.  Google Scholar
  28. Keynes, John M.: A Treatise On Probability, London 1921.  Google Scholar
  29. Koosed, Margery Malkin: Averting Mistaken Executions by Adopting the Model Penal Code’s Exclusion of Death in the Presence of Lingering Doubt, Northern Illinois University Law Review Vol. 21, 2001, pp. 41–129.  Google Scholar
  30. Lando, Henrik: The Size of the Sanction Should Depend on the Weight of the Evidence, Review of Law and Economics Vol. 1, 2005, pp. 277–292.  Google Scholar
  31. Langbein, John H.: Torture and the Law of Proof: Europe and England in the Ancien Regime, Chicago 1977.  Google Scholar
  32. Lanni, Adriaan: Jury Sentencing in Noncapital Cases: An Idea Whose Time Has Come (Again)?, The Yale Law Journal Vol. 108 No. 7, 1999, pp. 1775–1803.  Google Scholar
  33. Laudan, Larry: Truth, Error, and Criminal Law, Cambridge 2006.  Google Scholar
  34. Lillquist, Erik: Absolute Certainty and the Death Penalty, American Criminal Law Review Vol. 42, 2005, pp. 45–91.  Google Scholar
  35. Lillquist, Erik: Recasting Reasonable Doubt: Decision Theory and the Virtues of Variability, U.C. Davis Law Review Vol. 36, 2002, pp. 85–196.  Google Scholar
  36. MacCoun, Robert J.: Modeling the Impact of Extralegal Bias and Defined Standards of Proof on the Decisions of Mock Jurors and Juries, Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1984.  Google Scholar
  37. Martin, Janet: A Balanced Performance on Sentence: Some Comments on the Modern Role of Defense Counsel in the Sentencing Process, Criminal Law Review Vol. 15, 1991, pp. 261–281.  Google Scholar
  38. Morano, Anthony A.: A Reexamination of the Development of the Reasonable Doubt Rule, Boston University Law Review Vol. 55, 1975, p. 507 et seq.  Google Scholar
  39. Picinali, Federico: Do Theories of Punishment Necessarily Deliver a Binary System of Verdicts? An Exploratory Essay, Criminal Law and Philosophy Vol. 12, 2018, pp. 555–574.  Google Scholar
  40. Russell, Bertrand: An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth, 1980.  Google Scholar
  41. Russell, Bertrand: Theory of Knowledge, in: Eames, E. R./Blackwell, K. (eds.), The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell, 1983.  Google Scholar
  42. Schuman, Jacob: Probability and Punishment: How to Improve Sentencing by Taking Account of Probability, New Criminal Law Review Vol. 18 No. 2, 2015, pp. 214–272.  Google Scholar
  43. Shapiro, Barbara J.: “Beyond Reasonable Doubt” and “Probable Cause”: Historical Perspectives on the Anglo-American Law of Evidence, Berkeley 1991.  Google Scholar
  44. Shoham, Giora Shlomo/Shavit, Gabriel: Offenses and Punishments: An Introduction to Penology, 1990.  Google Scholar
  45. Silving, Helen: “Rule of Law” in Criminal Justice, in: Mueller, G./Gault, R./Hein, W. (eds.), Essays in Criminal Science, 1961, pp. 77–154.  Google Scholar
  46. Simon, Rita James: “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt,” An Experimental Attempt at Quantification, Journal of Applied Behavioral Vol. 6, 1970, pp. 203–209.  Google Scholar
  47. Simon, Rita James: Judges’ Translations of Burdens of Proof into Statements of Probability, The Trail Lawyer’s Guide Vol. 103, 1969, pp. 103–114.  Google Scholar
  48. Simon, Rita James/Mahan, Linda: Quantifying Burdens of Proof: A View from the Bench, the Jury, and the Classroom, Law and Society Review Vol. 5, 1971, pp. 319–330.  Google Scholar
  49. Stein, Alex: Against ‘Free Proof’, Israel Law Review Vol. 31, 1997, pp. 573–589.  Google Scholar
  50. Stoffelmayr, Elisabeth/Seidman, Shari: The Conflict between Precision and Flexibility in Explaining “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law Vol. 6, 2000, pp. 769–787.  Google Scholar
  51. Sundby, Scott E.: The Capital Jury and Absolution: The Intersection of Trial Strategy, Remorse, and the Death Penalty, Cornell Law Review Vol. 83, 1998, pp. 1557–1598.  Google Scholar
  52. The Constitution Project, Mandatory Justice: Eighteen Reforms to the Death Penalty, 2001, available at: www.constitutionproject.org/dpi/MandatoryJustice.pdf (accessed at 25.3.2023).  Google Scholar
  53. Treadway, Jennifer R.: “Residual Doubt” in Capital Sentencing: No Doubt it is an Appropriate Mitigating Factor, Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol. 43, 1992, pp. 215–252.  Google Scholar
  54. Vaki, Yaniv: Appropriateness between the degree of punishment and the degree of certainty in a conviction, Hamishpat Vol. 26, 2008, p. 79 et seq.  Google Scholar
  55. Vaki, Yaniv: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: The Flexible Principle of Proof in Israeli Law, 2013.  Google Scholar
  56. Whitman, James Q.: The Origins of “Reasonable Doubt”, New Haven 2008.  Google Scholar

Preview

Table of Contents

Section Title Page Action Price
Yaniv Vaki: Condign Punishment Appropriate to the Extent of Proof 317
I. Introduction 317
II. The Traditional Model: Separation Between the Culpability and Punishment Stages 318
III. Dependence Between the Culpability and Punishment Stages 319
IV. Distinguishing Between Convictions Based on the Underlying Evidence 324
V. The Proposed Model: Condign Punishment, Appropriate to the Strength of the Evidence 328
Bibliography 331

Contact

Duncker & Humblot GmbH Carl-Heinrich-Becker-Weg 9 12165 Berlin, Deutschland T: +49 30 790006-0

Quick Navigation

2024 Duncker & Humblot GmbH

Powered by CloudPublish

We use cookies to ensure that you get the best experience on our website. Learn more about how we use cookies.